Re: release-notes: small fixes to whats-new.dbk

Andrei POPESCU <[email protected]> Sun, 14 Apr 2019 23:44:07 +0300

Newsgroups	gmane.linux.debian.devel.documentation,gmane.linux.debian.internationalization.english
Message-ID	<20190414204407.xa7ho75welbp2lok@pine64>

On Du, 14 apr 19, 21:03:59, Justin B Rye wrote:
> Andrei POPESCU wrote:
> > Of course it helps if I actually attache the patch :)
> 
> They look good to me, but I also see one other change to add:
> 
> > @@ -390,7 +390,7 @@ code.
> >      &debian; &releasename; has <literal>AppArmor</literal> enabled per
> >      default. <literal>AppArmor</literal> is a mandatory access control
> >      framework that allows to restrict programs' capabilities like read,
>                       ^^^^^^^^^
> > -    write and execute permissions on files or mount, ptrace and signal
> > +    write and execute permissions on files, or mount, ptrace and signal
> >      permissions by defining per-program profiles.
> 
> You can allow actions (to occur) or allow users (to do things), but
> allowing without a direct object isn't allowed.  And when we're
> talking about a mechanism for *forbidding* things it's best to avoid
> the word anyway!
> 
> While I'm rephrasing that I'll change everything else, too - avoid
> "like" (these are examples, not an analogy), avoid implying that it
> changes rwx "permissions" on files as such, shift the file access
> part to simplify the grammar, and finally add "Oxford commas":
> 
>      framework for restricting programs' capabilities (such as mount, ptrace,
>      and signal permissions, or file read, write, and execute access) by
>      defining per-program profiles.

FWIW, this is much better and easier to understand in my opinion.

Your comments are also much appreciated by a non-native speaker as[1] 
myself.

[1] corrected from "like", hopefully I got it right :)

Kind regards,
Andrei
-- 
http://wiki.debian.org/FAQsFromDebianUser

signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, 833 B)