Hello El 3/2/19 a las 14:08, Salvatore Bonaccorso escribió: > Hi Antoinie, > > [adding team@s.d.o to CC] > > Thanks for working on this. > > On Fri, Feb 01, 2019 at 01:44:10PM -0500, Antoine Beaupré wrote: >> On 2018-12-19 18:05:36, Antoine Beaupré wrote: >>> The DLAs are visible here: >>> >>> https://www-staging.debian.org/security/2018/dla-1580 >>> >>> One thing that's unclear is how the entries get added to the main list >>> in: >>> >>> https://www-staging.debian.org/security/2018/ >>> >>> That still needs to be cleared up. >> >> That's actually in the webwml code, I opened a MR to add those: >> >> https://salsa.debian.org/webmaster-team/webwml/merge_requests/50 > > IMHO they should not be mixed into the same namespace as the DSAs. > https://www.debian.org/security/ is very specific to the > debian-security-announce list and contains items for e.g. contacting > the Debian security team or referecing the respective FAQ. >
Note that we already have some DLAs published in www.debian.org/security/YYYY, for the years 2014, 2015 and 2016. See for example: https://www.debian.org/security/2014/index I don't mind to move the already published DLAs to other place if people decides it's better, but I frankly don't know if/where these URLs are used/publicised (in Debian and maybe other places too), and we may need to setup redirectors from the current URLs to the new ones (no problem with that, I say it only to not forget, in case we decide to move all the DLAs to a different place). Kind regards, -- Laura Arjona Reina https://wiki.debian.org/LauraArjona > I think having a dedicated https://www.debian.org/lts/ where those can > be collected and having further information on LTS would be somehow > better. > > This will need an adjustment to the tracker side as well so that > sources filed for Debian LTS DLA's will not link to > https://www.debian.org/security/$year/dla-$nr . > > If a dedicated subpage is not needed and the only purpose is to link > to a webversion, and the DLA's do not show up in the overall view then > possibly the status quo is still okay. > > What do you think? >
