Bug#1109867: www.debian.org: Extend Releases table with data for all releases
Hi,
Am 30. Juli 2025 17:45:36 MESZ schrieb Jonathan Dowland <jmtd@debian.org>:
>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?
On www.d.o and on the wiki, yes.
>> 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"?
"under LTS support" is missing, with a link to <https://wiki.debian.org/LTS> (*not* LTS-Extended)
>> 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.
Yes, that would be better IMHO, using EOL only in the "official Debian life cycle" sense.
>> 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
That's at <https://wiki.debian.org/LTS/Extended>
But there are so many pages with different approaches (the LTS/Extended wiki has another sight compared to LTS or DebianReleases wiki pages), so they cannot be consistent here.
However, it might help, to not use EOL/End of life term on LTS and LTS/Extended wiki pages (as you mentioned above - switch to "End of 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.
Yes.
>> 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?
Yes, I think using "Historic releases" instead would be good.
Holger
--
Sent from /e/ OS on Fairphone3
Reply to: