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

Re: Bug#859122: about 500 DLAs missing from the website

On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 03:56:41PM -0500, Antoine Beaupré wrote:
> It's true there's a lot of junk in there... I suspect most of the `.pl`
> scripts in there could actually be symlink to the main secteam scripts,
> because they are basically the same.
> I also suspect most of the stuff is unused, even from the secteam's
> point of view. For example, `check-cve-refs.pl` assumes there's a
> `security/data` directory in the website, which is not the case
> (anymore?). 

I'll also leave that to the security/www teams considerations ;)

> I would suggest removing those from at least the LTS
> section and have done so in the following MR:
> https://salsa.debian.org/webmaster-team/webwml/merge_requests/55

I've reviewed, merged and pushed this now. Thank you!

> > * This new /lts section of the website is not referenced yet in other
> > places of the Debian website. I'm not sure if it should be referenced in
> > /security, in /releases/XXXX, or in both. There is also the temptation
> > of creating a link in the homepage but there is also the suggestion of
> > reducing the links in the homepage, so... For now, I'll try to add it to
> > the sitemap and see how many references to the LTS wiki page we have
> > currently, to see if any of them can be replaced with link to this
> > section in the website. But I'll wait some days to do it because it's
> > not clear for me if you want to populate the section to cover all the
> > aspects of LTS, or keep it only/mainly for security stuff.
> I would avoid putting the LTS work too proeminently on the website at
> this point, to be honest. The goal of publishing those advisories there,
> for me, is coherence: they were already partly present and I wanted to
> have them *all* available *somewhere* with a predictable URL and RSS
> feeds (as opposed to, say the mailing list).

> We shouldn't get into the slippery debate of how much we want LTS
> content on the website, in my opinion.

at least for here and now! :)


       PGP fingerprint: B8BF 5413 7B09 D35C F026 FE9D 091A B856 069A AA1C

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: