Paul Gevers 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 wasn't a clear advice to people with encryptfs,
> + except not upgrading.
Advice is a non-count noun, and "not upgrading" doesn't quite fit the
grammar either. Make it
paragraph, there was no clear advice for users of encryptfs,
except not to upgrade.
And I'm not sure even the non-upgrade option counts as clear advice,
but I suppose it's the nearest thing we've got.
--
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..b713646c 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 encryptfs,
+ except not to upgrade.
</para>
</listitem>
</itemizedlist>
