Re: about 500 DLAs missing from the website
Hello
El 3/2/19 a las 14:08, Salvatore Bonaccorso escribió:
> Hi Antoinie,
>
> [adding team@s.d.o to CC]
>
> Thanks for working on this.
>
> On Fri, Feb 01, 2019 at 01:44:10PM -0500, Antoine Beaupré wrote:
>> On 2018-12-19 18:05:36, Antoine Beaupré wrote:
>>> The DLAs are visible here:
>>>
>>> https://www-staging.debian.org/security/2018/dla-1580
>>>
>>> One thing that's unclear is how the entries get added to the main list
>>> in:
>>>
>>> https://www-staging.debian.org/security/2018/
>>>
>>> That still needs to be cleared up.
>>
>> That's actually in the webwml code, I opened a MR to add those:
>>
>> https://salsa.debian.org/webmaster-team/webwml/merge_requests/50
>
> IMHO they should not be mixed into the same namespace as the DSAs.
> https://www.debian.org/security/ is very specific to the
> debian-security-announce list and contains items for e.g. contacting
> the Debian security team or referecing the respective FAQ.
>
Note that we already have some DLAs published in
www.debian.org/security/YYYY, for the years 2014, 2015 and 2016. See for
example:
https://www.debian.org/security/2014/index
I don't mind to move the already published DLAs to other place if people
decides it's better, but I frankly don't know if/where these URLs are
used/publicised (in Debian and maybe other places too), and we may need
to setup redirectors from the current URLs to the new ones (no problem
with that, I say it only to not forget, in case we decide to move all
the DLAs to a different place).
Kind regards,
--
Laura Arjona Reina
https://wiki.debian.org/LauraArjona
> I think having a dedicated https://www.debian.org/lts/ where those can
> be collected and having further information on LTS would be somehow
> better.
>
> This will need an adjustment to the tracker side as well so that
> sources filed for Debian LTS DLA's will not link to
> https://www.debian.org/security/$year/dla-$nr .
>
> If a dedicated subpage is not needed and the only purpose is to link
> to a webversion, and the DLA's do not show up in the overall view then
> possibly the status quo is still okay.
>
> What do you think?
>
Reply to: