| Adeodato Simó 2007-05-31, 7:25 pm |
| * Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña [Thu, 31 May 2007 12:33:07 +0200]:
Hello.
> I actually think we should ship a *distinct* /etc/debian_version
> in testing and not make it follow the "sid->testing->stable" dance. Otherwise
> there is a timeframe in which sid's or testing's base-files say's it is
> stable, when it's not.
Like Javier, I also think that it'd be desirable to have somewhere, be
it /etc/debian_version or not, distinct information about the release.
His idea about /etc/lsb-release sounds sensible to me:
> However, this opens the possibility of introducing /etc/lsb-release in Debian
> (not required by lsb, but nice to have for people who do not want to rely on
> the lsb_release script) with properly structured content like:
> DISTRIB_ID=Debian
> DISTRIB_RELEASE=4.0
> DISTRIB_CODENAME=etch
> DISTRIB_DESCRIPTION="Debian GNU/Linux 4.0 'etch'"
> and
> DISTRIB_ID=Debian
> DISTRIB_RELEASE=testing
> DISTRIB_CODENAME=lenny
> DISTRIB_DESCRIPTION="Debian GNU/Linux testing 'lenny' (UNRELEASED)"
Santiago, would you be willing to introduce this new file (distinct from
/etc/debian_version) into base-files, and maintain two separate branches
of the package as explained by Javier?
If not, Javier's idea about introducing a new packagae for this file
seems the only option left, and I wouldn't mind maintaining it. Other
packages like lsb-release and maybe base-files could depend on it.
Though I think it'd be best to ship /etc/lsb-release on base-files
itself.
> Either ways make the hacks introduced in lsb_release unnecesary.
This sounds desirable, yes. Let's wait for Santiago's opinion.
Cheers,
--
Adeodato Simó dato at net.com.org.es
Debian Developer adeodato at debian.org
It is impossible to make anything foolproof because fools are so ingenious.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
|