Bug#1109867: www.debian.org: Extend Releases table with data for all releases

On Mon Jul 28, 2025 at 9:22 AM BST, Holger Wansing wrote:
> Well, we have two different tables now:

Do you mean two tables at https://www.debian.org/releases/, or do you 
mean a table at www/releases/ and another at the Wiki?

> 1.
> Bullseye is listed as "Current oldstable release" on www.d.o, so it 
> lacks the LTS status (but this is shown on the wiki page)

Do you mean the "Status" column lacks a link to LTS/Extended (which is 
present for Buster and Stretch)? Would this be fixed by adding that link
after "Current oldstable release"?

> 2.
> the term " EOL End of life" is used in different ways: in the wiki a 
> release is EOL, when ELTS is over, while on www.d.o it is EOL, when it 
> becomes oldstable.

I'm less concerned about inconsistencies between www and the wiki 
(especially since I think the table is going to be deleted from the 
wiki) than I am about internal inconsistencies on the www pages.

I think the www page is internally consistent with its use of EOL. Do 
you agree?

I think "EOL LTS" and "EOL ELTS" is a bit of a mouthful, and "End of 
LTS" (etc) would be clearer.

> Example: bullseye is far away from being EOL on the wiki page (it's 
> marked with green background; EOL would be red)

Where is this? There are only green cells in the "Release statistics"
table at wiki DebianReleases. It's in yellow in the table on wiki LTS.

> while on www.d.o bullseye is already EOL (since the "EOL date" is over).

That's consistent with how EOL is being used on www, I think.

> 3.
> Buster and stretch have the status "Archived release, under 
> third-party paid extended LTS support", but they are not listed in the 
> "Archived releases" section of www.d.o.
> This seems inconsistent.

I agree. If the "Archived releases" header instead read "Historic 
releases" or "Obsolete releases", would that be better?


-- 

👱🏻	Jonathan Dowland
✎	 [email protected]
🔗	https://jmtd.net