XPost: linux.debian.www
Hi,
Am 30. Juli 2025 17:45:36 MESZ schrieb Jonathan Dowland <
[email protected]>:
On Mon Jul 28, 2025 at 9:22 AM BST, Holger Wansing wrote:
Well, we have two different tables now:
Do you mean two tables at https://www.debian.org/releases/, or do you mean a table at www/releases/ and another at the Wiki?
On www.d.o and on the wiki, yes.
1.
Bullseye is listed as "Current oldstable release" on www.d.o, so it lacks the LTS status (but this is shown on the wiki page)
Do you mean the "Status" column lacks a link to LTS/Extended (which is present for Buster and Stretch)? Would this be fixed by adding that link
after "Current oldstable release"?
"under LTS support" is missing, with a link to <
https://wiki.debian.org/LTS> (*not* LTS-Extended)
2.
the term " EOL End of life" is used in different ways: in the wiki a release is EOL, when ELTS is over, while on www.d.o it is EOL, when it becomes oldstable.
I'm less concerned about inconsistencies between www and the wiki (especially since I think the table is going to be deleted from the wiki) than I am about internal inconsistencies on the www pages.
I think the www page is internally consistent with its use of EOL. Do you agree?
I think "EOL LTS" and "EOL ELTS" is a bit of a mouthful, and "End of LTS" (etc) would be clearer.
Yes, that would be better IMHO, using EOL only in the "official Debian life cycle" sense.
Example: bullseye is far away from being EOL on the wiki page (it's marked with green background; EOL would be red)
Where is this? There are only green cells in the "Release statistics"
table at wiki DebianReleases. It's in yellow in the table on wiki LTS
That's at <
https://wiki.debian.org/LTS/Extended>
But there are so many pages with different approaches (the LTS/Extended wiki has another sight compared to LTS or DebianReleases wiki pages), so they cannot be consistent here.
However, it might help, to not use EOL/End of life term on LTS and LTS/Extended wiki pages (as you mentioned above - switch to "End of LTS").
while on www.d.o bullseye is already EOL (since the "EOL date" is over).
That's consistent with how EOL is being used on www, I think.
Yes.
3.
Buster and stretch have the status "Archived release, under third-party paid extended LTS support", but they are not listed in the "Archived releases" section of www.d.o.
This seems inconsistent.
I agree. If the "Archived releases" header instead read "Historic releases" or "Obsolete releases", would that be better?
Yes, I think using "Historic releases" instead would be good.
Holger
--
Sent from /e/ OS on Fairphone3
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)