On Mon, 1 Feb 2021 at 07:42, Ken Moffat via blfs-dev <blfs-dev@lists.linuxfromscratch.org> wrote: > > Apparently I made the decision around a day or so ago to use the > ISO date format instead of CCYY/MM/DD. Getting enough sleep would > be nice ;-) > > More relevantly, I've added dates and severity ratings in the > headers for each item. Where details were subsequently changed I've > changed 'Date:' to 'Updated:' (so far, only Thunderbird, 10.0 014). > > Who would have thought that so many of the updates during September > were rated as Critical (on the CVE details, and/or by upstreams) ? > > ĸen
Couple of thoughts: 1) How difficult would it be to have the "Update to pkgname-version or later. blfs-sa-id" sentences appear on a new line, rather than being run into the descriptive paragraph. That would make the fixes "stand out" a little more, and furthermore, the lack of a line beginning with "Update to ..." would also serve to indicate that there is no fix as yet. 2) When I "mouseover" the second line on the page BLFS-10.0 was released on 2020/09/01 the colouring changes suggesting that there was supposed to be a link there, but there is no target showing there? If there was supposed to be a link to the "Current stable" release there, could an automated link to the Current development book also be added somehwre near the top? I'm thinking that people viewing the SA page in a browser might also want to open up the Current development book alongside as well. Kevin -- http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
