[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: bits.debian.org: Wheezy LTS post about armel and armhf support



Hi Markus,

On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 04:38:00PM +0200, Markus Koschany wrote:
> Am 18.05.2016 um 16:18 schrieb Ana Guerrero Lopez:
> > On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 03:56:00PM +0200, Markus Koschany wrote:
> >> Hi folks,
> >>
> >> the LTS team would like to make a short announcement on bits.debian.org.
> >> We think it is worth mentioning that armel and armhf are supported
> >> architectures in Wheezy LTS. Please find our draft below.
> > 
> > Thank you Markus!
> > 
> > What doyou think about adding also a note about not needing to add any
> > suite extra.
> > A reword from this:
> > 
> > "For Debian 7 Wheezy LTS there will be no requirement to add a separate
> > wheezy-lts suite to your sources.list any more and your current setup will
> > continue to work without further changes"
> 
> Hi Ana,
> 
> I thought let's keep it short because we already announced that on the
> front page at debian.org. This is also mentioned on the wiki pages
> LTS/Using and LTS/Wheezy. I guess we can just omit this information from
> the announcement.


In bits and annoucements we prefer to be more verbose, so the message is
complete and understandable for the wider audience, even the ones not
familiarized with the topic.

Given that this is a short news/update on former news, we think it's better if
you send it to the LTS-announce mailing list, and from the publicity team we
can microblog it and mention it in the next DPN.

If you still want to publish the info in bits.debian.org, please review our
alternative proposal at https://pressblicity.titanpad.com/20

We realize that we in the Publicity team need to improve the documentation on
how we approach the many different debian channels, and your email
announcement has started an internal discussion about how to improve and
make it known how the Publicity channels can best be used.  We're sorry we
were delaying to reply you because of this.

Ana


Reply to: