(Oops, slightly delayed by a powercut. Hurrah for FS journals.)
Niels Thykier wrote:
> +<section>
> + <title>Samba4 requires exec-bit to permit files to be open for
> execution</title>
> + <para>
s/open/opened/, and I don't think people say "exec-bit" (just
"executable bit").
<title>Samba4 requires executable bit to permit files to be opened for
execution</title>
Or maybe it could be shortened to
<title>New requirements for file execution in Samba</title>
> + If a client requests for a file to be "opened for execution", then
> + Samba4 will require that the file have the "exec-bit" set on the
> + file in addition to the regular read permissions. This also
> + causes "netlogon" scripts to be silently ignored if they lack this
> + exec-bit.
If a client requests that a file should be "opened for execution",
Samba4 will require the executable bit to be set on the
file in addition to the regular read permissions. This also
causes "netlogon" scripts to be silently ignored if they lack this
executable bit.
--
JBR with qualifications in linguistics, experience as a Debian
sysadmin, and probably no clue about this particular package
Index: issues.dbk
===================================================================
--- issues.dbk (revision 10842)
+++ issues.dbk (working copy)
@@ -966,13 +966,13 @@
</section>
</section>
<section>
- <title>Samba4 requires exec-bit to permit files to be open for execution</title>
+ <title>New requirements for file execution in Samba4</title>
<para>
- If a client requests for a file to be "opened for execution", then
- Samba4 will require that the file have the "exec-bit" set on the
+ If a client requests that a file should be "opened for execution",
+ Samba4 will require the executable bit to be set on the
file in addition to the regular read permissions. This also
causes "netlogon" scripts to be silently ignored if they lack this
- exec-bit.
+ executable bit.
</para>
</section>
</chapter>
