Re: Bug#747697: [RFR] templates://debian-security-support/{debian-security-support.templates}
Christoph Biedl wrote:
> Justin B Rye wrote...
[...]
>>> CHECK-SUPPORT-STATUS(1)
>>> =======================
>>>
>>> NAME
>>> ----
>>> check-support-status - check installed packages for ended security support
>>
>> (Should that perhaps be "reduced security support"?)
>
> Remainder of an early development phase when there was only the
> "ended" check. So it should be rather "check installed packages for
> ended or reduced security support". But
>
> | check-support-status - check installed packages for ended or reduced security support
> | 1++++++++1+++++++++2+++++++++3+++++++++4+++++++++5+++++++++6+++++++++7+++++++++8+++++
>
> this should fit into 80 characters if possible.
I was thinking of "reduced" as a cover-term for "ended or limited",
but it doesn't really work. We could I suppose invert the implied
return value of the check and say just:
check-support-status - check installed packages for security support
[...]
> So your proposal is OK, except the "optional" attribute is missing.
> I'd write:
>
> | * the rest (optional): details, and/or a URL for further information.
Yes, I suppose that's the solution.
>>> BUGS
>>> ----
>>
>> (More of a wontfix "LIMITATIONS", really)
>
> Yes, it's just "BUGS" is a well-established name for that section.
>
>>> Using mixed distribution like half-stable, half-testing is not
>>> supported.
>>
>> "Mixed distributions" (or perhaps "a mixed distribution").
>
> I tend to something like
>
> | Installations with mixed distributions like half-stable, half-testing
> | are not supported.
>
> but should leave the last word to you.
Yes, that's grammatical. Of course, it's the subtly odd Debian use of
"distribution" to mean "OS development branch", but it's decades too
late to worry about that one.
--
JBR with qualifications in linguistics, experience as a Debian
sysadmin, and probably no clue about this particular package
Reply to: