[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Document removal of ecryptfs-utils from Buster

On Monday 01 July 2019 09:14:07 Curt wrote:

> 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).
I'm not sure I understand all the numbers either. OTOH, paranoia that 
makes a few use it does seem to be related to the hand of a beerholder.

> Maybe I'm getting this all wrong.

Its entirely possible we're both wrong, and that caldrons of hot tar and 
old pillows will materialize in this space. I personally have never felt 
the need to use it, so I haven't. To me, its something else that guy 
Murphy can break, at the most inopportune time of course.  He drinks my 
last beer just often enough to remind me he's about the place. :)

> *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.

Cheers, Gene Heskett
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
 soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)
If we desire respect for the law, we must first make the law respectable.
 - Louis D. Brandeis
Genes Web page <http://geneslinuxbox.net:6309/gene>

Reply to: