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.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Reply via email to