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
