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

[Justin B Rye <justin.byam.rye@gmail.com>]

Holger Wansing 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 was no clear advice for users of encryptfs,
>>               except not to upgrade.
> 
> 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?

Oops!  Well, I can fix that bit.

And to make it easier to remember we can use the upstream "brand name"
spelling "eCryptfs".

(I wonder: is it "extended" Cryptfs?  "enterprisey" Cryptfs?)
-- 
JBR	with qualifications in linguistics, experience as a Debian
	sysadmin, and probably no clue about this particular package

diff --git a/en/issues.dbk b/en/issues.dbk
index 481df49b..7165690e 100644
--- a/en/issues.dbk
+++ b/en/issues.dbk
@@ -333,8 +333,8 @@ $ sudo update-initramfs -u
             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.
+            paragraph, there was no clear advice for users of eCryptfs,
+            except not to upgrade.
           </para>
         </listitem>
       </itemizedlist>