On Fri, Jan 29, 2021 at 07:14:37PM +0000, Ken Moffat via blfs-dev wrote: > > I've minimally started to hack on a page covering the 60+ items > since 10.0 was released (14 in January up to last night by my > current counting) to see how it looks. Still feeling my way. > What I can't be sure about is whether or not I've got the relative > links correct until I commit something. > > I'm thinking that updating the existing links from the new page > after a release so that they point to the latest version (i.e. > advisories during the lifetime of 10.1 will eventually point to > the 10.2 book) is the way to go. > > Will put something up when I've got a bit further and have a > better feel for how it will look. At the moment I've only got the > first two (on a page copied from the current errata, with most > details still there so I can copy the links. >
$DEITY, I loath subversion. I'd created a page with a first cut of all the advisories we should have made in September (I missed at least one) in www2 at www2/html/trunk/blfs/advisories/index.html but I couldn't commit it. ken@llamedos ~/repos/www2/html/trunk/blfs $svn st A advisories A advisories/index.html ken@llamedos ~/repos/www2/html/trunk/blfs $svn ci 'Add an Advisories page, first cut for review.' svn: E200009: Commit failed (details follow): svn: E200009: '/home/ken/repos/www2/html/trunk/blfs/Add an Advisories page, first cut for review.' is not under version control Copied it out, reverted it in stages, rm -rf. Test commit in errata was ok. mkdir, add, copy back in, add, this time it committed. So at last it is up for review at http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/advisories/ - unfortunately, I thought I'd fixed links to the books on my local rendered copies with symlinks. But they are not working here. Too late to look at it for the moment. I suppose I'll have to log on to higgs and try to work out the directory structure. What I was initially going to say was that I've worked up through the changelog to try to get everything into the order in which we committed it (at least one later item appears to be missing from the changelog), so I think this is worth doing. The big question is about the identifications - how should the year/month/number part be formatted, and should we have prefixes ? I'm also wondering about LFS vulnerabilities (the last big one I remember was perl a year or two back) - should we also include those ? I guess that would make linking even harder. I've tried various formats for the numbers, and prefixes of BLFS SA, LFS SA, SA, none. I've let the text run within the book's margins and therefore multiple links to CVE numbers etc are not on separate lines, similarly the links to the books are on two lines and sometimes wrap around the line break. My current thought is that we (I, I suppose) should definitely change the links from the dev books to the released books after a release, so the text for these would all be retained, but pointing to the 10.1 books (assuming the links are fixable). Final thought - doing the September items 4 months later probably means some CVEs or other details are now available which could not be read at the time. Time for comments. ĸen -- The right of the people to keep and arm Bears, shall not be infringed. -- http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
