Bug#975301: split security-support-limited into release specific files
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. 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#975301: split security-support-limited into release specific files
Control: tags -1 + patch On Fri, 20 Nov 2020 08:40:22 + Holger Levsen wrote: > clone 975016 -1 > retitle -1 split security-support-limited into > security-support-limited.deb(9|10|11) > thanks > > On Thu, Nov 19, 2020 at 07:48:45PM +0100, Moritz Mühlenhoff wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 18, 2020 at 12:46:52PM +, Holger Levsen wrote: > > > looks good to me! > > Thanks for the upload. > > :) note however that "#975016: OpenJDK 15 support state for Bullseye" is still > open... > > > > I've already switched to maintain the package in branches so this should > > > be > > > fairly easy. That said, splitting security-support-limited into > > > security-support-limited.deb(9|10|11) still sounds reasonable to me as > > > well. > > 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 Cheers, -- Santiago signature.asc Description: PGP signature
