Quoting Justin B Rye (justin.byam.rye@gmail.com): > No, "needed" is simple past, which implies that the situation > described (i.e. the need for curtailed security support) has ended; > what we want here is present perfect (the "has" construction), which > implies that the situation described has continuing relevance. > Nice catch ! > > - The following packages found on your system are affected by this. > > + The following packages found on this system are affected by this: > > . > > ${MESSAGE} > > I gather this template text is echoed by runtime messages from > binaries in the package (since there's a messages.po with the same > grammar problem). Should I give you a patch for that too? Would be a good idea, yes. Same for the manpage. > > -Description: Identify installed packages with ended/limited security support > > +Description: identify installed packages with ended/limited security support > > Well, it's not a capitalised verb phrase any longer, but you haven't > managed to cram it into DevRef's preferred noun phrase format; that > would need something like > Description: identifier for installed packages with ended/limited security support > Or maybe "detector"... but that's awkward. How about: > > Description: security support coverage checker Sounds great. I was indeed unable to find anything that wouldn't be too clunky.... > Do I understand that it does this by *containing lists* of packages > with such limits? Okay, so if LibreOffice (say) declares that the > version of their software in stable is now unsupported, how is that > information going to reach users who have debian-security-support > already installed (apart from "via the security mailinglists they > should also be subscribed to", that is)? I would have expected this > package to have a cron-job downloading new lists and comparing them to > "dpkg -l" output, or maybe to receive package updates via the security > repository and automatically check for alerts via an apt hook. But > instead it seems to be essentially manual - is that correct? > > If you don't want intemperate bug reports from people who guessed > wrong, you ought to answer this question in the package description. I leave that to answer to the package maintainers..:-)
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature