Bug#484873: packages.qa.debian.org: should it still list oldstable?
On Sat, Jun 07, 2008 at 12:20:04PM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> On Sat, 07 Jun 2008, Christian Perrier wrote:
> > As of now, oldstable is no longer supported (security-wise).
> > I wonder whether it should still be listed on p.q.d.o pages in such
> > situations, which might be misleading to out users.
> The PTS is mostly static and it's painful to make stuff appear and
> disappear based on a criteria that can't be checked programmatically.
If you added a toggle for "is oldstable supported?", then surely that would
then be a programmatic check...?
> Furthermore I do check the version of packages in oldstable even when
> oldstable is no more supported for example to decide if I can drop the
> version check in a build-dependency (if it's satisfied in old stable I
> remove it, otherwise I keep it).
That seems like a pointless thing to check; it's only of benefit to users
who are trying to backport packages but haven't bothered fully upgrading
their environment to stable. People shouldn't do that, and I don't see why
you would spend effort to make it easier for them to do that.
Anyway, at some point oldstable stops being available at all in the archive,
and then such checks cease to be practical, so why bother with them right
now either?
> So my vote goes to keep it. If you solve the problem of detecting if
> oldstable is supported or not, we can eventually put it in another color
> or put a title attribute over it to mark it's no more supported.
I think it's fair to leave oldstable listed on p.q.d.o until such time as
oldstable is dropped from the archive. I guess mirror disk space is not a
pressing issue right now, since this hasn't happened yet.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developer http://www.debian.org/
slangasek@ubuntu.com vorlon@debian.org
Reply to: