[PROPOSAL] Remove BOOLREV (enable spoolss, writable, writeable) parameters
abartlet at samba.org
Fri Feb 14 19:26:20 MST 2014
On Fri, 2014-02-14 at 21:28 +0100, Michael Adam wrote:
> On 2014-02-14 at 18:10 +0100, Andreas Schneider wrote:
> > On Tuesday 14 January 2014 17:30:46 Andrew Bartlett wrote:
> > > While not required by any work being done right now, looking forward to
> > > a consistent loadparm in the future, I think the job would be easier if
> > > we didn't have BOOLREV synonyms.
> > >
> > > Could we deprecate these parameters for 4.2, and remove them for 4.3?
> > >
> > > It would be safe (in a security sense) for upgrades to 4.3, because if
> > > they were still in use, such a share would just become read only, or at
> > > worst spoolss would be enabled. In the long term, I think it would be
> > > easier to explain our syntax to our users without this 'feature'.
> > >
> > > What do folks think?
> > You mean:
> > wurst = true
> > wurst = True
> > wurst = yes
> > wurst = Yes
> This is not about the different ways we offer to
> specify a boolean value.
> What Andrew is referring to here is the concept
> of having REVERSE boolean synonyms like
> writeable <-> read only
> Regarding Andrew's question, I am not certain.
> The inverse synonyms are quite convenient at times,
> and people are used to it, so what more precisely would
> we gain by removing them?
We don't gain much really, mostly a little code simplicity. They are
pretty weird, but since I posted that I've found much more that is even
weirder that we need to keep.
In this case, what I put was more a question than a proposal and as long
as someone feels they are convenient I'll let it rest there.
Thanks for your consideration,
Andrew Bartlett http://samba.org/~abartlet/
Authentication Developer, Samba Team http://samba.org
Samba Developer, Catalyst IT http://catalyst.net.nz/services/samba
More information about the samba-technical