Hallo,
* Francesco Namuri [Tue, Jan 31 2017, 06:06:01PM]:

> > Yes, I agree that it's easily discoverable--which is why I'm concerned
> > that simply removing the entire functionality of the package without
> > any kind of notification to the user isn't the best way to address the
> > problem. Again: removing the package simply ensures that people
> > upgrading to stretch will either end up with a cryptkeeper package
> > that exhibits this bug, or will remove their cryptkeeper package and
> > not know how to access their stored data, right?
> > 
> > Mike Stone
> 
> Hello Mike,
> thanks for the comments.
> 
> This issue only affectes the cryptkeeper working with encfs 1.9.1-3, in
> stable we have 1.7.4-5 that works as cryptkeeper expects.
> 
> People that upgrades from jessie to stretch simple "loses" cryptkeeper,
> package, of course they are still able to access their stored data using
> encfs or any other frontend to it.
> 
> IMHO it's better to remove the program in any envrionment that is affected
> by this issue, putting a note in the README or also on the debconf isn't
> enough to balance the gravity of the issue. Users can think they lost data
> because of a wrong password, or even worst they can trust on a worthless
> data encryption.

Also many thanks from my side...

So I guess I better upload an encfs package which simply conflicts with
cryptkeeper or does anyone have a better idea?

Best Regards,
Eduard.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Reply via email to