Quoting Peter Eisentraut ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> Right, this bug is not reasonable. I bet there would be another set of
> complainers if SWAT actually kept default settings, or worse only some
> of them. At least right now the behavior is straightforward.
I'm actually inclined to close the bug
Christian Perrier wrote:
> I actually beg to disagree. SWAT has always been "sold" as a tool
> that's likely to rewrite the configuration file. So, if the user
> wants to maintain the configuration file outside SWAT, (s)he should
> not use SWAT at all..:-)
Right, this bug is not reasonable. I bet
This bug says: "SWAT should not remove "security = user" even if it is
implied and the default. This makes the setup confusing and error
prone."
I actually beg to disagree. SWAT has always been "sold" as a tool
that's likely to rewrite the configuration file. So, if the user wants
to maintain the
Package: samba-swat
Version: SWAT should not remove "security = user"
Severity: normal
Hi,
SWAT should not remove "security = user" even if it is implied and the default.
This makes the setup confusing and error prone.
Thanks,
Yann
-- System Information:
Debian Release: testing/unstable
APT
4 matches
Mail list logo
