Bug#1040439: sudo: /etc/sudoers.d/README contains nonsensical text
On Thu, Jul 06, 2023 at 08:16:49PM +, patri...@gmail.com wrote: > Dear Maintainer, > > Now that you explained it I understand the intended meaning behind the > sentence. > > My suggestion is this: > > "Sudo versions older than the one in Debian 11 (bullseye) support only the > old syntax #includedir, current sudo supports both @includedir and > #includedir" I have talked to upstream and have refined the README a bit. New wording is in https://salsa.debian.org/sudo-team/sudo/-/blob/master/debian/etc/sudoers.d/README Greetings Marc P.S.: patri...@gmail.com does not seem to exist, gmail bounces e-mail. -- - Marc Haber | "I don't trust Computers. They | Mailadresse im Header Leimen, Germany| lose things."Winona Ryder | Fon: *49 6224 1600402 Nordisch by Nature | How to make an American Quilt | Fax: *49 6224 1600421
Bug#1040439: sudo: /etc/sudoers.d/README contains nonsensical text
Package: sudo Version: 1.9.13p3-1 Followup-For: Bug #1040439 Dear Maintainer, Now that you explained it I understand the intended meaning behind the sentence. My suggestion is this: "Sudo versions older than the one in Debian 11 (bullseye) support only the old syntax #includedir, current sudo supports both @includedir and #includedir"
Bug#1040439: sudo: /etc/sudoers.d/README contains nonsensical text
Control: tags -1 confirmed thanks On Wed, Jul 05, 2023 at 10:28:37PM +, patri...@gmail.com wrote: > Notice the last sentence: > "Sudo versions older than the one in Debian 11 (bullseye) require the > directive will only support the old syntax #includedir, and the current sudo > will happily accept both @includedir and #includedir" The words "require the directive" are wrong here, and after they have been removed the sentence makes sense to me, as a non-native speaker. Please suggest a different wording if you want it differently. > has very broken english. Please fix and release the fix into bookworm > because documentation should be clear. I apologize, but this will not be going into a point release. I might pursue that if an update is in order for technical reasons, but strictly speaking that is not eligible for a stable point release. Greetings Marc
Bug#1040439: sudo: /etc/sudoers.d/README contains nonsensical text
Package: sudo Version: 1.9.13p3-1 Severity: normal Dear Maintainer, The file /etc/sudoers.d/README contains the following block of text: # Note also, that because sudoers contents can vary widely, no attempt is # made to add this directive to existing sudoers files on upgrade. Feel free # to add the above directive to the end of your /etc/sudoers file to enable # this functionality for existing installations if you wish! Sudo # versions older than the one in Debian 11 (bullseye) require the # directive will only support the old syntax #includedir, and the current # sudo will happily accept both @includedir and #includedir Notice the last sentence: "Sudo versions older than the one in Debian 11 (bullseye) require the directive will only support the old syntax #includedir, and the current sudo will happily accept both @includedir and #includedir" has very broken english. Please fix and release the fix into bookworm because documentation should be clear. -- System Information: Debian Release: 12.0 APT prefers stable-security APT policy: (500, 'stable-security'), (500, 'stable') Architecture: amd64 (x86_64) Kernel: Linux 6.1.0-9-amd64 (SMP w/1 CPU thread; PREEMPT) Locale: LANG=C, LC_CTYPE=C.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8), LANGUAGE not set Shell: /bin/sh linked to /usr/bin/dash Init: systemd (via /run/systemd/system) LSM: AppArmor: enabled Versions of packages sudo depends on: ii init-system-helpers 1.65.2 ii libaudit11:3.0.9-1 ii libc62.36-9 ii libpam-modules 1.5.2-6 ii libpam0g 1.5.2-6 ii libselinux1 3.4-1+b6 ii zlib1g 1:1.2.13.dfsg-1 sudo recommends no packages. sudo suggests no packages. -- Configuration Files: /etc/sudoers [Errno 13] Permission denied: '/etc/sudoers' /etc/sudoers.d/README [Errno 13] Permission denied: '/etc/sudoers.d/README' -- no debconf information
