On Fri, 29 May 2009, Jonathan Wiltshire wrote: > Package: ufw > Version: N/A > Severity: normal > Tags: patch > > Dear Debian maintainer, > > On Tuesday, May 19, 2009, I notified you of the beginning of a review process > concerning debconf templates for ufw. > > The debian-l10n-english contributors have now reviewed these templates, > and the proposed changes are attached to this bug report. >
Thank you. As mentioned in out initial correspondence, I was out of town the last two weeks and had limited opportunity to work on ufw. That said, I am back now and ready to comment. Hopefully my comments will fall within the time-frame for these changes. Your work on this is much appreciated. I'll comment on the patch inline. Please consider uncommented sections as agreement to the proposed changes. > Template: ufw/enable > Type: boolean > Default: false > -_Description: Enable ufw > - If you enable ufw now, it will block incoming connections and will be > started > - the next time you reboot. If it is disabled, ufw will not be started on > boot. > - To start or stop ufw without rebooting, please use '/etc/init.d/ufw start' > or > - '/etc/init.d/ufw stop'. > +_Description: Start ufw automatically? > + If you choose this option, the rules you are about to set will take > immediate > + effect, and will be enabled during startup so that this host is protected > + as early as possible. > + . > + Alternatively, you may start ufw manually but this host > + will not be protected until you do so. > Two things regarding this. 'immediate' is not accurate because postinst does not start ufw due to potential iptables failures (eg the installer kernel has different modules available). We ran into this in earlier versions in Ubuntu. The 'will' in the original description was meant to convey that ufw will be enabled some time in the future and will be active on reboot. Also, while this is indeed a boolean, due to limitations in the gtk debconf backend, it was deemed that the original wording worked best with the gtk checkbox. See http://launchpad.net/bugs/344971 for details. If you feel that the Description here is better considering all contexts, I am fine with making the change, but I wanted to point our the gtk debconf deficiency. Everything else looks excellent and is a great improvement over what existed before. Thanks again for your work on this! :) Jamie -- Jamie Strandboge | http://www.canonical.com
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
