Hi, On 02-06-2019 12:45, Justin B Rye wrote: > 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?) Pushed. Paul
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature