Re: Bug#508772: Please allow base-files 5 in lenny
Santiago Vila wrote:
> > Santiago Vila wrote:
> > > BTW: Should I worry about Bug#508772? This is the very first time in
> > > 10 years that someone seems unconvenienced by seeing a version number
> > > like 5.0 in unstable for a few weeks. Are there really packages which
> > > break because of this? If not, I feel that the BTS is being abused.
> > If it wouldn't break stuff I wouldn't have filed this as a "important" bug
> > (but as minor)
> > openoffice.org 3.x is already prepared for lenny backports and does that
> > based on checking lsb_releases output.
> Ok, some questions:
> * Why don't you worry about lenny backports after lenny is stable? I thought
> it was a policy for *-backports that packages reach testing first, which
> is not obviouslty the case.
a) openoffice.org is an exception
b) I can still prepare it without uploading it to bpo, no?
> * Is lsb_release really required for that? Is not there any other
> way to achieve the same result?
I you find an other way to look up whether you build on lenny or sid...
But lsb_release is the tool for it.
> * What about release in lsb_*release*? One could argue that trying to
> apply release properties to things which are not released is not the
> way to go.
One could argue that /etc/debian_version should tell the truth, regardless
of whether it's in a release (candidate) or in a development version.
.''`. René Engelhard -- Debian GNU/Linux Developer
: :' : http://www.debian.org | http://people.debian.org/~rene/
`. `' firstname.lastname@example.org | GnuPG-Key ID: 248AEB73
`- Fingerprint: 41FA F208 28D4 7CA5 19BB 7AD9 F859 90B0 248A EB73