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
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature