encrypting /home partition post-install

[Sam Varshavchik]

Patrick O'Callaghan writes:

> On Mon, 2015-11-30 at 08:36 +0100, Heinz Diehl wrote:
> > On 29.11.2015, Sam Varshavchik wrote:
> >
> > > I really don't understand why Fedora is still foisting all the
> > > overhead of
> > > LVM on everyone, by default. I would tend to think that for typical
> > > use
> > > cases, LVM brings absolutely nothing value-added.
> >
> > I'd like to second that!
> >
> > Mentioned the same issue here on this list several months ago when
> > F22 came up..
>
> It's an issue that raises its head sporadically and has done for
> several years. I'm also in the No camp and take care to disable LVM on
> any new install, but I can't see the situation changing unless or until
> something functionally equivalent comes along (BRTFS?). In the
> meantime, we sigh and move on.

No, the whole point is that "functionally equivalent" still doesn't bring  
anything value-added to the table.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/users/attachments/20151130/e5d346c7/attachment.sig>