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