On Thu, 04 Jun 2009, Jonathan Wiltshire wrote: > > > +_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. > > I propose this line instead: > > + If you choose this option, the rules you are about to set > + will be enabled during system startup so that this host is protected > + as early as possible. >
I like this wording better, but when coupled with the following phrase, there is an ambiguity on when the host will be protected. What if it was something like (I'm not super pleased with the wording, but it at least conveys that the host is not protected unless started manually, or if enabled via debconf, until reboot): + If you choose this option, the rules you are about to set will be + enabled during system startup so that this host is protected as early + as possible. + . + To protect this host immediately, you must start ufw manually. > > 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. > > As long as you're happy with Christian's rationale for this one, I'll > leave it as it is (I wasn't involved with the Installer discussions so > my experience is limited here). > This is fine by me since it works better in more situations. Jamie -- Jamie Strandboge | http://www.canonical.com
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
