Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.debian.user > #210533
| From | Curt <curty@free.fr> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | linux.debian.user |
| Subject | Re: Document removal of ecryptfs-utils from Buster |
| Date | 2019-07-01 15:20 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <yf4nU-4ag-5@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink) |
| References | <yeEMN-5mL-1@gated-at.bofh.it> <yeLbA-OY-5@gated-at.bofh.it> <yeZod-Y5-1@gated-at.bofh.it> <yf1q2-2o4-5@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| Organization | Unorganized |
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.
Back to linux.debian.user | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Document removal of ecryptfs-utils from Buster Curt <curty@free.fr> - 2019-06-30 12:00 +0200
Re: Document removal of ecryptfs-utils from Buster Andrea Borgia <andrea@borgia.bo.it> - 2019-06-30 17:40 +0200
Re: Document removal of ecryptfs-utils from Buster Sven Hartge <sven@svenhartge.de> - 2019-06-30 18:20 +0200
Re: Document removal of ecryptfs-utils from Buster Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2019-06-30 18:50 +0200
Re: Document removal of ecryptfs-utils from Buster Jonathan Dowland <jmtd@debian.org> - 2019-07-01 10:00 +0200
Re: Document removal of ecryptfs-utils from Buster Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2019-07-01 12:10 +0200
Re: Document removal of ecryptfs-utils from Buster Curt <curty@free.fr> - 2019-07-01 15:20 +0200
Re: Document removal of ecryptfs-utils from Buster Jonathan Dowland <jmtd@debian.org> - 2019-07-01 15:50 +0200
Re: Document removal of ecryptfs-utils from Buster Curt <curty@free.fr> - 2019-07-01 16:10 +0200
Re: Document removal of ecryptfs-utils from Buster Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2019-07-01 22:00 +0200
Re: Document removal of ecryptfs-utils from Buster David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2019-07-01 15:40 +0200
Re: Document removal of ecryptfs-utils from Buster Jonathan Dowland <jmtd@debian.org> - 2019-07-01 15:50 +0200
Re: Document removal of ecryptfs-utils from Buster Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2019-07-01 22:00 +0200
Re: Document removal of ecryptfs-utils from Buster Jonathan Dowland <jmtd@debian.org> - 2019-07-01 22:20 +0200
Re: Document removal of ecryptfs-utils from Buster David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2019-07-02 01:50 +0200
Re: Document removal of ecryptfs-utils from Buster Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2019-07-02 11:20 +0200
Re: Document removal of ecryptfs-utils from Buster Richard Hector <richard@walnut.gen.nz> - 2019-07-07 02:10 +0200
Re: Document removal of ecryptfs-utils from Buster Andrea Borgia <andrea@borgia.bo.it> - 2019-06-30 19:00 +0200
Re: Document removal of ecryptfs-utils from Buster Tixy <tixy@yxit.co.uk> - 2019-06-30 19:50 +0200
Re: Document removal of ecryptfs-utils from Buster deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> - 2019-06-30 21:20 +0200
Re: Document removal of ecryptfs-utils from Buster Curt <curty@free.fr> - 2019-07-01 09:50 +0200
Re: Document removal of ecryptfs-utils from Buster Curt <curty@free.fr> - 2019-07-01 16:20 +0200
Re: Document removal of ecryptfs-utils from Buster Greg Wooledge <wooledg@eeg.ccf.org> - 2019-07-01 16:50 +0200
Re: Document removal of ecryptfs-utils from Buster Curt <curty@free.fr> - 2019-07-01 17:50 +0200
Re: Document removal of ecryptfs-utils from Buster Greg Wooledge <wooledg@eeg.ccf.org> - 2019-07-01 16:20 +0200
70-persistent-net-rules no longer supported? (Was Re: Document removal of ecryptfs-utils from Buster) The Wanderer <wanderer@fastmail.fm> - 2019-07-02 14:10 +0200
Re: 70-persistent-net-rules no longer supported? (Was Re: Document removal of ecryptfs-utils from Buster) Curt <curty@free.fr> - 2019-07-02 14:40 +0200
Re: 70-persistent-net-rules no longer supported? (Was Re: Document removal of ecryptfs-utils from Buster) The Wanderer <wanderer@fastmail.fm> - 2019-07-02 15:00 +0200
Re: 70-persistent-net-rules no longer supported? (Was Re: Document removal of ecryptfs-utils from Buster) The Wanderer <wanderer@fastmail.fm> - 2019-07-02 15:20 +0200
Re: 70-persistent-net-rules no longer supported? (Was Re: Document removal of ecryptfs-utils from Buster) Greg Wooledge <wooledg@eeg.ccf.org> - 2019-07-02 15:20 +0200
Re: 70-persistent-net-rules no longer supported? (Was Re: Document removal of ecryptfs-utils from Buster) Curt <curty@free.fr> - 2019-07-02 16:20 +0200
Re: 70-persistent-net-rules no longer supported? (Was Re: Document removal of ecryptfs-utils from Buster) The Wanderer <wanderer@fastmail.fm> - 2019-07-02 16:30 +0200
Re: 70-persistent-net-rules no longer supported? (Was Re: Document removal of ecryptfs-utils from Buster) Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2019-07-02 21:20 +0200
Re: 70-persistent-net-rules no longer supported? Stephan Seitz <stse+debian@fsing.rootsland.net> - 2019-07-03 09:20 +0200
Re: 70-persistent-net-rules no longer supported? Curt <curty@free.fr> - 2019-07-03 10:10 +0200
Re: 70-persistent-net-rules no longer supported? Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2019-07-03 11:30 +0200
Re: 70-persistent-net-rules no longer supported? (Was Re: Document removal of ecryptfs-utils from Buster) Geoff <unit735@bigpond.com> - 2019-07-03 04:30 +0200
Re: 70-persistent-net-rules no longer supported? (Was Re: Document removal of ecryptfs-utils from Buster) Andrei POPESCU <andreimpopescu@gmail.com> - 2019-07-08 11:20 +0200
csiph-web