From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org)
by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60)
(envelope-from <gentoo-user+bounces-125430-garchives=archives.gentoo.org@lists.gentoo.org>)
id 1Qfc48-0000Vw-UU
for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Sat, 09 Jul 2011 18:15:45 +0000
Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 72CF0E0429
for <garchives@archives.gentoo.org>; Sat, 9 Jul 2011 18:15:44 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183])
by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6102321C1C4
for <gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org>; Sat, 9 Jul 2011 17:57:07 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E91BC2AC120
for <gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org>; Sat, 9 Jul 2011 17:57:06 +0000 (UTC)
X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new using ClamAV at gentoo.org
X-Spam-Score: -5.329
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.329 required=5.5 tests=[AWL=1.270,
BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from smtp.gentoo.org ([127.0.0.1])
by localhost (smtp.gentoo.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
with ESMTP id SVnDl2k-vepb for <gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org>;
Sat, 9 Jul 2011 17:57:00 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from lo.gmane.org (lo.gmane.org [80.91.229.12])
by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0A7822AC11F
for <gentoo-user@gentoo.org>; Sat, 9 Jul 2011 17:56:57 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from list by lo.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69)
(envelope-from <lnx-gentoo-user@m.gmane.org>)
id 1Qfblu-0000ad-Cf
for gentoo-user@gentoo.org; Sat, 09 Jul 2011 19:56:54 +0200
Received: from c-98-215-231-30.hsd1.in.comcast.net ([98.215.231.30])
by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian))
id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00
for <gentoo-user@gentoo.org>; Sat, 09 Jul 2011 19:56:54 +0200
Received: from reader by c-98-215-231-30.hsd1.in.comcast.net with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian))
id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00
for <gentoo-user@gentoo.org>; Sat, 09 Jul 2011 19:56:54 +0200
X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/
To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org
From: Harry Putnam <reader@newsguy.com>
Subject: [gentoo-user] Re: [OT encfs] When encfs gets hungup
Date: Sat, 09 Jul 2011 12:56:42 -0500
Organization: Still searching...
Message-ID: <871uxzmj6t.fsf@newsguy.com>
References: <87aacon249.fsf@newsguy.com>
<1310150155.231514.20.camel@localhost.localdomain>
<20110708225028.0aa44251@zaphod.digimed.co.uk>
Precedence: bulk
List-Post: <mailto:gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gentoo-user+help@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:gentoo-user+unsubscribe@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gentoo-user+subscribe@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail <gentoo-user.gentoo.org>
X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org
Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org
X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: c-98-215-231-30.hsd1.in.comcast.net
User-Agent: Gnus/5.110018 (No Gnus v0.18) Emacs/24.0.50 (gnu/linux)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:Fs/AksUzU1D0xFKleGh26c2qiEM=
X-Archives-Salt:
X-Archives-Hash: 16f1dfa6f8c8679cae3768a8137d3bc5
Neil Bothwick <neil@digimed.co.uk> writes:
> On Fri, 08 Jul 2011 14:35:55 -0400, Albert Hopkins wrote:
>
>> Having said that:
>> One of encfs's Achilles heel is its dependency on the boost C++ library
>> which is *very* sensitive wrt to API/ABI changes and the like. It also
>> depends on OpenSSL which also shares this notoriety (although, in my
>> experience, less so). So there is a possibility that an update to any
>> of those packages may have broken encfs and you need to rebuild the
>> package.
>
> Apart from the need to access legacy data, which Harry has resolved by
> reformatting, is there any benefit in using encfs rather than the
> in-kernel ecryptfs these days?
Are you using ecryptfs? I started looking around and thinking exactly
what Albert says is not a proper response, and wondering if ecryptfs
might be a better choice.
Also after seeing no responses or any posts at all on the encfs group,
I wondered if ecryptfs is under active development, as it appears
encfs is not. So, for that reason alone, (assuming there is current
active devel going on with ecryptfs) it might be good to switch.
I will admit though, that I have had several trouble free yrs of use
with encfs.. and it appears now that my reported problems may have
been largely self inflicted wounds.