Comment 6 for bug 1316242

So couple things: I didn't tag this bug for a specific package. I reported it specifically about incorrect documentation about the website. Someone else decided to move it to a package, I thought this was because the package was deployed to the web. If this is inaccurate, then the bug was incorrectly tagged as being for a package, and thus my original is still valid and stands. The public-facing website documentation still publishes incorrect information about the trusty release.

I don't have time to create and SRU over something I already reported as a bug and needed enhancement for a specific release when I already did that. If canonical is fine with having incorrect documentation about their product then that's fine. Otherwise this should probably be re-opened and the documentation should be fixed as indicated.