On Tue, Aug 04, 2009 at 05:39:34PM +0100, Steve Langasek wrote: > On Tue, Aug 04, 2009 at 01:45:31AM +0200, Simon Paillard wrote: > > > > Here is a skeleton and its HTML output: > > > > http://europe.ebzao.info/~spaillar/debian/webwml/english/security/pam.wml > > > > http://europe.ebzao.info/~spaillar/debian/webwml/english/security/pam.en.html > > > > The latter link doesn't appear to work? > > > A clean was perfomered in the mean time, the html output is back now. > > Thanks, that makes it easier to read. :) Filling in the blanks: > > XXX -> 1.0.1-6 > $date_X.X.X -> 28 Feb 2009 > YYY -> 1.0.1-9 > ZZZ -> 1.0.1-10 > > Now, as for the overall content, the first paragraph is very misleading, as > it implies that all users would have unsecured systems. Only a very small > minority of users (mainly, those with pathological debconf setups) will be > affected by the bug. So perhaps this is better?: [..] > Thoughts?
Better indeed, draft updated. I think adding the date of the fix release 1.0.1-10 makes future reading of this page more comprehensive. Using DSA templates is not possible here, unless we agree to display "Debian Security Advisory" as title page.. Regards. -- Simon Paillard -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-www-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
