Re: Document removal of ecryptfs-utils from Buster
On 2019-07-01, Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> wrote:
> On Monday 01 July 2019 03:52:55 Jonathan Dowland wrote:
>
>> On Sun, Jun 30, 2019 at 12:45:57PM -0400, Gene Heskett wrote:
>> >At this point, I'd call it a buster delaying bug. That last is going
>> > to cost too many that can't ignore it and don't have unencrypted
>> > backups. Thats going to be a lot of very bad PR.
>>
>> It's the release teams call, generally speaking, and one of the things
>> they might factor in is the size of the user-base for the troublesome
>> package. I'm surprised to find that it's extremely small according to
>> popcon data: less than 1% of reporters:
>> https://qa.debian.org/popcon.php?package=ecryptfs-utils
>>
>> Compare just two alternatives:
>>
>> encfs: 1.14% https://qa.debian.org/popcon.php?package=encfs
>> cryptsetup: 15% https://qa.debian.org/popcon.php?package=cryptsetup
>
> That does put a better light on it. From the comments so far, I was
The light's not switching on for me, Gene. I'm trying to figure out
Popularity Contest and what all those statistics mean.
Let's compare encfs and ecryptfs-utils with a bit more granularity.
NAME NUMBER % RANK NUMBER % RANK ...
____________________________________________________________________________
ecryptfs-utils 1651 0.85% 10510 1066 0.58% 3632 ...
encfs 2231 1.14% 9233 630 0.34% 4574 ...
The second triad of NUMBER % RANK columns corresponds to the number of people
using the package regularly* and by that metric ecryptfs-utils beats encfs by a
relative long shot (1066 to 630, 0.58% to 0.34%). It's true cryptsetup appears
to be the clear winner of the three, though it's not entirely comparable to the
other two use-case/implementation-wise (block device level encryption as
compared to file system level encryption).
Maybe I'm getting this all wrong.
*whatever that may denote in this case, exactly
> thinking I'm one of the few not using it. I've depended on dd-wrt
> between me and the internet for the last 16 years, and even before that
> I was on dialup and the dialup folks didn't have enough bandwidth to
> attract the black hats, so I've never been touched.
Reply to: