Bug#1109867: www.debian.org: Extend Releases table with data for all releases
On Mon Jul 28, 2025 at 9:22 AM BST, Holger Wansing wrote:
Well, we have two different tables now:
Do you mean two tables at https://www.debian.org/releases/, or do you
mean a table at www/releases/ and another at the Wiki?
1.
Bullseye is listed as "Current oldstable release" on www.d.o, so it
lacks the LTS status (but this is shown on the wiki page)
Do you mean the "Status" column lacks a link to LTS/Extended (which is
present for Buster and Stretch)? Would this be fixed by adding that link
after "Current oldstable release"?
2.
the term " EOL End of life" is used in different ways: in the wiki a
release is EOL, when ELTS is over, while on www.d.o it is EOL, when it
becomes oldstable.
I'm less concerned about inconsistencies between www and the wiki
(especially since I think the table is going to be deleted from the
wiki) than I am about internal inconsistencies on the www pages.
I think the www page is internally consistent with its use of EOL. Do
you agree?
I think "EOL LTS" and "EOL ELTS" is a bit of a mouthful, and "End of
LTS" (etc) would be clearer.
Example: bullseye is far away from being EOL on the wiki page (it's
marked with green background; EOL would be red)
Where is this? There are only green cells in the "Release statistics"
table at wiki DebianReleases. It's in yellow in the table on wiki LTS.
while on www.d.o bullseye is already EOL (since the "EOL date" is over).
That's consistent with how EOL is being used on www, I think.
3.
Buster and stretch have the status "Archived release, under
third-party paid extended LTS support", but they are not listed in the
"Archived releases" section of www.d.o.
This seems inconsistent.
I agree. If the "Archived releases" header instead read "Historic
releases" or "Obsolete releases", would that be better?
--
👱🏻 Jonathan Dowland
✎ jmtd@debian.org
🔗 https://jmtd.net
Reply to: