Paul Gevers wrote:
> On IRC there was a remark about our security archive section. It
> currently reads:
>
> For bullseye, the security suite is now named
> <literal>bullseye-security</literal> instead of
> <literal>buster/updates</literal> and users should adapt their
> APT source-list files accordingly when upgrading.
>
> The readers were expecting to read bullseye/updates. Several proposals
> came up:
>
> 1) "as would have been used for previous releases" or something
Well, buster/updates isn't what *would* have been used, it's what
*was* used, and *other* previous releases used that format but not
that exact string. Maybe
For bullseye, the security suite is named
<literal>bullseye-security</literal> (not
<literal>bullseye/updates</literal>, the format used in
previous releases), and users should adapt their
> 2) "For bullseye, the security suite is named bullseye-security. This
> changed from the previous release which used buster/updates."
I'd use "has changed". It might be worth using a "variable" to
emphasise that we're talking about a change in format:
For bullseye, the security suite is named
<literal>bullseye-security</literal>. This is a change from
previous releases which used the format
<literal><replaceable>releasename</replaceable>/updates</literal>."
> 3) bullseye/updates.
For that to work I'd also want to at least drop the "now", to avoid
saying that bullseye formerly used bullseye/updates.
> or leave as-is (best for translations).
>
> It reads fine by me, but I've seen it too often the last couple of days.
> What do you think?
I'm not sure either.
--
JBR with qualifications in linguistics, experience as a Debian
sysadmin, and probably no clue about this particular package
