Andrei POPESCU wrote:
>> + disable it before the upgrade, to ensure login sessions work on
>> + &releasename;. (A possible route to re-enabling it is outlined on the
>
> Any particular reason for using "&releasename;" instead of "buster"?
>
> At least for me it's easier to read (and understand) the source text
> without so much markup.
I'll just have been copying the prevailing markup features from
neighbouring sections..
Personally I would be happy to see &releasename; etc. eliminated in
any section that won't be kept for the buster->bullseye edition (and
the places that don't change should rarely mention releasenames).
It's not quite as bad as &debian;, which almost never makes sense,
since anybody recycling this document for (e.g.) Devuan would need to
change almost everything else, too.
But I've given up trying to get this sorted out, just as I've given up
asking why it is that we write "stretch" when the release announcement
called it "Stretch" and it's named after something called "Stretch"!
--
JBR with qualifications in linguistics, experience as a Debian
sysadmin, and probably no clue about this particular package
