The wiki page https://wiki.debian.org/DebianReleases#Production_Releases
partially duplicates this page. Import the relevant dates from the wiki
page to this page, and move all releases into the Table.

Request was on IRC:

<zeha> could someone please import the dates from https://wiki.debian.org/DebianReleases#Production_Releases into https://www.debian.org/releases/ so the duplication can go away?

<zeha> (mostly for the old releases)

https://salsa.debian.org/webmaster-team/webwml/-/merge_requests/1052

close 1109867
thanks

Well, we have two different tables now:

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)

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.

Example: bullseye is far away from being EOL on the wiki page (it's marked with green background; EOL would be red), while on www.d.o bullseye is already EOL (since the "EOL date" is over).

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.



Holger

Control: reopen -1

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?

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"?

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.

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.

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

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

Hi,

Am 30. Juli 2025 17:45:36 MESZ schrieb Jonathan Dowland <jmtd@debian.org>:

On www.d.o and on the wiki, yes.

"under LTS support" is missing, with a link to <https://wiki.debian.org/LTS> (*not* LTS-Extended)

Yes, that would be better IMHO, using EOL only in the "official Debian life cycle" sense.

That's at <https://wiki.debian.org/LTS/Extended>

But there are so many pages with different approaches (the LTS/Extended wiki has another sight compared to LTS or DebianReleases wiki pages), so they cannot be consistent here.

However, it might help, to not use EOL/End of life term on LTS and LTS/Extended wiki pages (as you mentioned above - switch to "End of LTS").

Yes.

Yes, I think using "Historic releases" instead would be good.


Holger

Thanks for your useful suggestions. I'm happy with everything.

I also think that 'End of LTS' is better than EOL LTS and same for ELTS.

Also the name 'Historic releases' makes it clearer that you should not use
those releases any more.

Maybe we can highlight the current stable release in the table (on www.d.o),
because it already contains seven releases.

BTW, I like the colors in the wiki table.
But on https://wiki.debian.org/LTS the column 'schedule' is not that
readable as in https://wiki.debian.org/LTS/Extended which clearly has
two columns for begin and end of ELTS.