Source: debian-security-support Severity: normal El 27/09/23 a las 09:25, Raphael Hertzog escribió: > Hi, > > On Tue, 26 Sep 2023, Santiago Ruano Rincón wrote: > > > > Agreed, a split makes sense, it causes marginal additional overhead and > > > > makes > > > > the whole setup more explicit. > > > > > > cloning this bug once more so we don't forget about this. > > > > (I think the moreinfo tag comes from the original bug) > > > > I hope this MR correctly splits the limited support file: > > https://salsa.debian.org/debian/debian-security-support/-/merge_requests/17 > > As I commented on the MR, I think it would be a good move to merge "ended" > and "limited" files together. This will require more code changes but > gives a clearer overview of the restrictions affecting a given release. > > We could have a single file per release with 3 fields: > > * package (or package regexp) > * supported (true/false), trues implies limited support, false means not > supported > * comment (should explain the limitation if supported == true) > > We could keep an unversioned file (for unstable?) that would serve as > template when we have to create a new release.
Since #975301 has been closed now, I think this should be discussed in a new bug report. I like the above suggestion. Just wondering why don't keep the "latest version with support" and "Date when support ended or will end" fields currently found in "ended" files.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
