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

Syntax for DSA (was: [SECURITY] [DSA 1865-1] New Linux 2.6.18)



Dear security team,

>From one DSA to another, the syntax changes a bit, and it makes the
current import script not happy, and same with me :-)

BTW, did you have a look at
http://lists.debian.org/debian-security/2009/07/msg00096.html ?

On Sun, Aug 16, 2009 at 02:52:35PM -0600, dann frazier wrote:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Debian Security Advisory DSA-1865-1                security@debian.org
                                   ^^Sometimes, -1 is ommited (yes we
may consider ommited as -1 by default if you want to)

> Aug 16, 2009                        http://www.debian.org/security/faq
  ^^ August is expected here (full month name).
 
> Package        : linux-2.6
[..]
> Upgrade instructions
> --------------------
[..]
> The following matrix lists additional source packages that were rebuilt for
> compatability with or to take advantage of this update:
> 
>                                              Debian 4.0 (etch)
>      fai-kernels                             1.17+etch.24etch3
>      user-mode-linux                         2.6.18-1um-2etch.24etch3
>
> You may use an automated update by adding the resources from the
> footer to the proper configuration.
 

Please put this notice before the paragraph about upgrade instructions
if you want to be available on the web page.
Or tell the exact syntax to use so that we can extract it from the
upgrade paragraph.

> Debian GNU/Linux 4.0 alias etch
> -------------------------------
> 
> Oldstable updates are available for alpha, amd64, hppa, i386, ia64, mipsel, powerpc, s390 and sparc.
> Updates for arm and mips will be released as they become available.

Please put this notice before the paragraph about upgrade instructions
if you want to be available on the web page.

> Source archives:
[..]
>   These changes will probably be included in the oldstable distribution on
>   its next update.

Same remark here.

-- 
Simon Paillard


Reply to: