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>
