[Pkg-samba-maint] r1070 - in trunk: . po

[Christian Perrier]

> >  Default: true
> >  _Description: Use password encryption?
> > - Recent Windows clients communicate with SMB servers using encrypted
> > + Most Windows clients communicate with SMB servers using encrypted
> 
> Why this change from "recent" to "most"?  This seems like a loss of
> information to me.  Perhaps "All recent" would be better?  Or spelling out

Because the only Windows clients that don't are Win98 and NT4-preSP4,
both being considered deprecated and unsupported by Microsoft.

So, I think that actually assuming that the vast majority of clients
for a samba server uses encrypted password by default is not wrong.

I felt a little ridiculous by saying "recent" for things like NT4 SP6
or Windows 2000...:)

> > + Choosing this option is highly recommended. If you do, make sure you
> > + have a valid /etc/samba/smbpasswd file and that you set passwords in
> > + there for each user using the smbpasswd command.
> 
> Is it really recommended to say "choosing", btw?  I would be inclined to say
> "enabling" rather than "choosing" in English.  Then again, I'm also
> sleep-deprived right now...

Agreed that "Enabling" is better. You're the native, anyway..

> Ohwell, I don't see the point in making paragraphs this short (the breaks
> are not between separate ideas), but otherwise ok.
> 
> Hmm, perhaps this would be a better paragraph break:
> 
>  To be compatible with the defaults in most versions of Windows, Samba must
>  be configured to use encrypted passwords.  This requires user passwords to
>  be stored in a file separate from /etc/passwd.  This file can be created
>  automatically, but the passwords must be added manually by running
>  smbpasswd and be kept up-to-date in the future.
>  .
>  If you do not create it, you will have to reconfigure samba (and probably
>  your client machines) to use plaintext passwords.
>  .
>  See /usr/share/doc/samba-doc/htmldocs/ENCRYPTION.html from the
>  samba-doc package for more details.


OK for me. I thought that a para break is better for having the main
ideas more visible.

> Both obsolete, let's just drop them.

OK

> 
> >  Template: samba/run_mode
> >  Type: select
> >  _Choices: daemons, inetd
> >  Default: daemons
> > -_Description: How do you want to run Samba?
> > +_Description: Samba run method:
> >   The Samba daemon smbd can run as a normal daemon or from inetd. Running as
> >   a daemon is the recommended approach.
> 
> I disagree with this change.  "run method" is not going to be clear to
> anyone who doesn't already know what the question is about; I suspect you
> made this change only because of your unhealthy bias against the use of
> second-person in templates ;)
> 
> So I propose to revert this.

But not with a question. For general overall consistency, I really
push to avoid questions for select/multiselect.

I agree that this is tricky to write.

I also have a bias against second person, yes...but a stronger bias
agains the interrogative form in such place.

> >  Type: boolean
> >  Default: false
> >  _Description: Move /etc/samba/smbpasswd to /var/lib/samba/passdb.tdb?
> > - Samba 3.0 introduces a newer, more complete SAM database interface which
> > - supersedes the /etc/samba/smbpasswd file.  Would you like your existing
> > - smbpasswd file to be migrated to /var/lib/samba/passdb.tdb for you?  If you
> > - plan to use another pdb backend (e.g., LDAP) instead, you should answer
> > - 'no' here.
> > + Samba 3.0 introduced a more complete SAM database interface which
> > + supersedes the /etc/samba/smbpasswd file.
> > + .
> > + Please confirm whether you would like the existing smbpasswd file to
> > + be automatically migrated to /var/lib/samba/passdb.tdb.  Do not
> > + choose this option if you plan to use another pdb backend (e.g.,
> > + LDAP) instead.
> 
> Maybe obsolete, need to look into that.


Very likely, yes.

> >  Template: swat/smb_conf_warn
> >  Type: note
> > -_Description: Your smb.conf will be re-written!
> > - SWAT will rewrite your smb.conf file. It will rearrange the entries and
> > - delete all comments, include= and copy= options. If you have a carefully
> > - crafted smb.conf then back it up or don't use SWAT!
> > +_Description: Configuration file rewritten by SWAT
> > + SWAT will rewrite the smb.conf file. It will rearrange the entries and
> > + delete all comments, include= and copy= options. If you use a carefully
> > + crafted smb.conf, you should probably avoid using SWAT.
> 
> Well, I would like it if we could just drop this note altogether; I don't
> like giving users warning pop-ups when they install a package just because
> the package does what it was intended to do...

Agreed. I as actually tempted to do so but I wanted to be conservative
(si, si...)

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
Url : http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-samba-maint/attachments/20060614/8c573859/attachment.pgp