| 1 |
On Fri, 08 Jul 2011 14:35:55 -0400, Albert Hopkins wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> Having said that: |
| 4 |
> One of encfs's Achilles heel is its dependency on the boost C++ library |
| 5 |
> which is *very* sensitive wrt to API/ABI changes and the like. It also |
| 6 |
> depends on OpenSSL which also shares this notoriety (although, in my |
| 7 |
> experience, less so). So there is a possibility that an update to any |
| 8 |
> of those packages may have broken encfs and you need to rebuild the |
| 9 |
> package. |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
Apart from the need to access legacy data, which Harry has resolved by |
| 12 |
reformatting, is there any benefit in using encfs rather than the |
| 13 |
in-kernel ecryptfs these days? |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
-- |
| 17 |
Neil Bothwick |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
Fine day for a good workout. Steal something heavy. |
Archives