Re: Installed base-files 2.2.5 (i386 source)
On Sat, 30 Dec 2000, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> Previously Santiago Vila wrote:
> > Changes:
> > base-files (2.2.5) unstable; urgency=low
> > .
> > * Modified debian_version, issue and issue.net in /etc so that they
> > read "2.2" again, since this is the last Debian *stable* release so far.
> > Since packages in `unstable' are now automatically moved to `testing',
> > a codename in /etc/debian_version will never be "right" for everybody, so
> > the only sensible thing to do here is to wait until a new release number
> > has been officially decided (Closes: #80784).
>
> I don't think that is a good idea. Having the codename for a stable,
> released distro in /etc/debian_version will lead people to think they
> are dealing with a stable system while in reality the machine might be
> running cutting-edge unstable.
I don't think so. People running unstable is supposed to know what
they are doing (moreover, they are *Debian* users, so they are
supposed to be intelligent enough).
In either case, /etc/debian_version is a nice thing to have for bug
reports etc., but it is not a *need* in any way, so people should not
worry about it too much.
Reply to: