On 6/24/19 2:40 AM, Peter Humphrey wrote:
Yes, I've done the same on two boxes that have no need of lvm. It does
seem wasteful though.
Probably.
I dislike the fact that other things that need device mapper have to
drag LVM along, or apply (what I call) a device-mapper-only /hack/.
I feel like device-mapper should be it's own package that other things
depend on; LVM, RAID (mdadm, et al.), multi-path, LUKS (cryptsetup).
I forget the detail now, but a recent-ish version of sys-fs/cryptsetup
found it needed a hard dependency on some of the code in lvm2.
Did you apply (what I call) the device-mapper-only /hack/. Or was LVM
pulled in for device-mapper?
It seems to me that we have here an opportunity for redesign of certain
packages. ("We" the community, that is.)
Agreed.
On this box, which does need lvm for RAID-1 on two SSDs:
Do you /need/ LVM? Or is it extra that comes with device-mapper?
--
Grant. . . .
unix || die
