Bug#928956: Document removal of ecryptfs-utils from Buster

[Holger Wansing <hwansing@mailbox.org>]

Hi,

Am Sonntag, 2. Juni 2019 schrieb Justin B Rye:
> Paul Gevers wrote:
> > +            The <systemitem role="package">ecryptfs-utils</systemitem> package
> > +            is not part of buster due to an unfixed serious bug (<ulink
> > +            url="&url-bts;765854">#765854</ulink>). At the time of writing this
> > +            paragraph, there wasn't a clear advice to people with encryptfs,
> > +            except not upgrading.
> 
> Advice is a non-count noun, and "not upgrading" doesn't quite fit the
> grammar either.  Make it
> 
>                paragraph, there was no clear advice for users of encryptfs,
>                except not to upgrade.
> 
> And I'm not sure even the non-upgrade option counts as clear advice,
> but I suppose it's the nearest thing we've got.

Maybe adding something like
"or migrate to <some alternative>" 
to the end would be helpfu?

And also, I wonder if "ecryptfs-utils" (without n) and 
encryptfs (with n) are both correct?

Holger 
 

-- 
Sent from my Jolla phone
http://www.jolla.com/