Re: Announcing Wheezy LTS via debian-security-announce
On Wed, 20 Apr 2016 10:31:48 +0100
Justin B Rye wrote:
> > As of today the standard security support for Wheezy came to an end, one
> > year after the release of Debian 8.0 alias "Jessie" and nearly three
> > years after the release of Debian 7.0 alias "Wheezy". The Debian Long
> > Term Support Team (LTS) will take over security support now.
> "As of today" with past tense seems odd; I'd use:
> As of today the standard security support for Wheezy is coming to an end, one
> But why are we giving the version numbers the *second* time we mention
> Wheezy (third, counting the Subject)? Why not
> As of today the standard security support for Debian 7.0, alias "Wheezy",
> is coming to an end, one year after the release of Debian 8.0, alias
> "Jessie", and nearly three years after the release of Wheezy. The
> Debian Long Term Support (LTS) Team will take over security support now.
> Or maybe, consolidating time references,
> As of today, one year after the release of Debian 8.0, alias "Jessie",
> and nearly three years after the release of Debian 7.0, alias "Wheezy",
> the standard security support for Wheezy is coming to an end. The
> Debian Long Term Support (LTS) Team will take over security support now.
1) since Debian7, the versioning scheme changed to drop second digit
squeeze is Debian 6.0.x and wheezy is Debian 7.x
Wheezy is not an alias only for 7.0 but also 7.1, 7.2, ...
2) it is: 3 years after the release of Debian 7.0
2 years and 8 months after the release of Debian 7.1
2 years and 6 months after the release of Debian 7.2
...
one year after the release of Debian 8.0
9 months after the release of Debian 8.1
4 months after the release of Debian 8.2
...
of course you can also say .. years after the first release of Debian X
--
AFAIR security/2014/dsa-2907 and LTS news use "regular security support"
same terms should be used
--
victory
no need to CC me :-)
http://userscripts.org/scripts/show/102724 0.0.1.4
http://userscripts.org/scripts/show/163846 0.0.1
http://userscripts.org/scripts/show/163848 0.0.1
Reply to: