Re: unclear release-notes section

[Justin B Rye <justin.byam.rye@gmail.com>]

Paul Gevers wrote:
> On IRC there was a remark about our security archive section. It
> currently reads:
> 
> 	For bullseye, the security suite is now named
> 	<literal>bullseye-security</literal> instead of
> 	<literal>buster/updates</literal> and users should adapt their
> 	APT source-list files accordingly when upgrading.
> 
> The readers were expecting to read bullseye/updates. Several proposals
> came up:
> 
> 1) "as would have been used for previous releases" or something

Well, buster/updates isn't what *would* have been used, it's what
*was* used, and *other* previous releases used that format but not
that exact string.  Maybe

  	For bullseye, the security suite is named
  	<literal>bullseye-security</literal> (not
 	<literal>bullseye/updates</literal>, the format used in
	previous releases), and users should adapt their

> 2) "For bullseye, the security suite is named bullseye-security. This
> changed from the previous release which used buster/updates."

I'd use "has changed".  It might be worth using a "variable" to
emphasise that we're talking about a change in format:

        For bullseye, the security suite is named
        <literal>bullseye-security</literal>. This is a change from
	previous releases which used the format
	<literal><replaceable>releasename</replaceable>/updates</literal>."

> 3) bullseye/updates.

For that to work I'd also want to at least drop the "now", to avoid
saying that bullseye formerly used bullseye/updates.
 
> or leave as-is (best for translations).
> 
> It reads fine by me, but I've seen it too often the last couple of days.
> What do you think?

I'm not sure either.
-- 
JBR	with qualifications in linguistics, experience as a Debian
	sysadmin, and probably no clue about this particular package