On Monday, 24 June 2019 08:46:55 BST Neil Bothwick wrote:
> So the choice is between an unsupported configuration or installing a
> handful of binaries that you will never use. Unless space was an issue,
> there's about 6NB difference, I'd go with the latter, although
> UNSUPPORTED != DOESNOTWORK
Yes, I've done the same on two boxes that have no need of lvm. It does seem
wasteful though.
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. It seems to me that
we have here an opportunity for redesign of certain packages. ("We" the
community, that is.)
On this box, which does need lvm for RAID-1 on two SSDs:
$ equery d lvm2
* These packages depend on lvm2:
app-emulation/virtualbox-6.0.8 (lvm ? sys-fs/lvm2)
net-fs/nfs-utils-2.4.1 (nfsv41 ? sys-fs/lvm2)
sys-block/gparted-0.33.0 (dmraid ? >=sys-fs/lvm2-2.02.45)
sys-block/parted-3.2_p25 (device-mapper ? >=sys-fs/lvm2-2.02.45)
sys-fs/cryptsetup-2.1.0 (sys-fs/lvm2[static-libs(+)])
(sys-fs/lvm2)
sys-fs/e2fsprogs-1.45.2 (cron ? sys-fs/lvm2[-device-mapper-only(-)])
sys-fs/udisks-2.8.3 (lvm ? sys-fs/lvm2)
sys-libs/libblockdev-2.22 (device-mapper ? sys-fs/lvm2)
(dmraid ? sys-fs/lvm2)
(lvm ? sys-fs/lvm2)
Other than sys-fs/cryptsetup, those are all conditional dependencies.
--
Regards,
Peter.
