From owner-freebsd-doc@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Oct 14 03:50:50 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-doc@FreeBSD.org Delivered-To: freebsd-doc@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 35DF216A403; Sat, 14 Oct 2006 03:50:50 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from trhodes@FreeBSD.org) Received: from pittgoth.com (ns1.pittgoth.com [216.38.206.188]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D8B3F43D45; Sat, 14 Oct 2006 03:50:49 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from trhodes@FreeBSD.org) Received: from localhost (net-ix.gw.ai.net [205.134.160.6] (may be forged)) (authenticated bits=0) by pittgoth.com (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id k9E3om5w095768 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 13 Oct 2006 23:50:49 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from trhodes@FreeBSD.org) Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2006 23:50:33 -0400 From: Tom Rhodes To: Shaun Amott Message-Id: <20061013235033.3a9e3728.trhodes@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <20061014030835.GA4308@picobyte.net> References: <200610140251.k9E2pPJG003322@freefall.freebsd.org> <20061014030835.GA4308@picobyte.net> Organization: The FreeBSD Project X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 1.0.6 (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386-portbld-freebsd7.0) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: trhodes@FreeBSD.org, freebsd-doc@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: docs/104381: [PATCH] Handbook security chapter: minor grammatical fixes X-BeenThere: freebsd-doc@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Documentation project List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2006 03:50:50 -0000 On Sat, 14 Oct 2006 04:08:36 +0100 Shaun Amott wrote: > On Sat, Oct 14, 2006 at 02:51:25AM +0000, Tom Rhodes wrote: > > > > Slightly different version of your patch committed. The patch > > you provided failed to apply, malformed. I also added a closing > > screen tag in the second hunk to keep the build from breaking. > > Thanks for the submission! > > > > Strange - it applied cleanly when I tested it. Who knows. Who cares? :) > > I see you used '&prompt.root;' for the k5destroy command - this doesn't > seem appropriate given the fact the ticket was obtained in the previous > example as an unprivileged user? You're correct, I've fixed it. Thanks! -- Tom Rhodes