Bug#1053462: debian-security-support: merge .ended and .limited files together

2023-10-05 Thread Raphael Hertzog
On Wed, 04 Oct 2023, Santiago Ruano Rincón wrote:
> > We could have a single file per release with 3 fields:
> > 
> > * package (or package regexp)
> > * supported (true/false), trues implies limited support, false means not 
> > supported
> > * comment (should explain the limitation if supported == true)
[...]
> I like the above suggestion. Just wondering why don't keep the "latest
> version with support" and "Date when support ended or will end" fields
> currently found in "ended" files.

It's just an oversight, I forgot about those fields.

But to be honest, I'm not sure that the first one is actually useful: what
does "latest version with support" mean? Version X might be supported now
and might no longer be supported in one year. And how does it mesh with
backports?

The date one might be more useful indeed, when we decide to follow the
upstream support schedule for instance.

On the opposite, it might be useful to be able to say that the source
package is still supported but only when you use at least version X
because we have switched to a backport of a new upstream version compared
to the version initially provided (it would be a special case of limited
support? or maybe we need to have different types of entries in the file?)

(If we make those changes, it's probably also the right time to take care of
https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=765452 with the
possibility to exclude some binary packages.)

Cheers,
-- 
  ⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀   Raphaël Hertzog 
  ⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁
  ⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋The Debian Handbook: https://debian-handbook.info/get/
  ⠈⠳⣄   Debian Long Term Support: https://deb.li/LTS


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature


Bug#1053462: debian-security-support: merge .ended and .limited files together

2023-10-04 Thread Santiago Ruano Rincón
Source: debian-security-support
Severity: normal

El 27/09/23 a las 09:25, Raphael Hertzog escribió:
> Hi,
> 
> On Tue, 26 Sep 2023, Santiago Ruano Rincón wrote:
> > > > Agreed, a split makes sense, it causes marginal additional overhead and 
> > > > makes
> > > > the whole setup more explicit.
> > > 
> > > cloning this bug once more so we don't forget about this.
> > 
> > (I think the moreinfo tag comes from the original bug)
> > 
> > I hope this MR correctly splits the limited support file:
> > https://salsa.debian.org/debian/debian-security-support/-/merge_requests/17
> 
> As I commented on the MR, I think it would be a good move to merge "ended"
> and "limited" files together. This will require more code changes but
> gives a clearer overview of the restrictions affecting a given release.
> 
> We could have a single file per release with 3 fields:
> 
> * package (or package regexp)
> * supported (true/false), trues implies limited support, false means not 
> supported
> * comment (should explain the limitation if supported == true)
> 
> We could keep an unversioned file (for unstable?) that would serve as
> template when we have to create a new release.

Since #975301 has been closed now, I think this should be discussed in a
new bug report.

I like the above suggestion. Just wondering why don't keep the "latest
version with support" and "Date when support ended or will end" fields
currently found in "ended" files.


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature