[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: [proposal] Documenting which revision is installed

On Thu, Dec 27, 2007 at 04:21:20PM +0100, Adeodato Sim?? wrote:
> * Anthony Towns [Thu, 27 Dec 2007 17:34:49 +1000]:
> > On Wed, Dec 26, 2007 at 11:53:25PM +0100, Adeodato Sim?? wrote:
> > > *Personally*, I like the idea of Javier Fern??ndez-Sanguino expressed in
> > > the mail linked above of keeping debian_version as is, and introducing
> > > /etc/lsb-release with detailed information like:
> > >   DISTRIB_ID=Debian
> > >   DISTRIB_DESCRIPTION="Debian GNU/Linux 4.0 'etch'"
> > The problem with base-files providing /etc/debian_version is that it means
> > /etc/debian_version can really only tell you what version of base-files
> > is installed. So if you upgrade every other package but base-files from
> > 4.0r1 to 4.0r2, you have all the functionality of 4.0r2 but get reported as
> > 4.0r1, and if you just upgrade base-files, you get reported as 4.0r2 while
> > still having the bugs from 4.0r1 that were meant to have been fixed.
> Yes, of course. And this is brought up whenever there's talk about
> /etc/debian_version. :-)

Right, so why not fix it properly? (Did you read the rest of my mail?)

> However, I believe that most people wanting more detail in that file, or
> another file, are aware of such limitations, 

The main limitation is that it's a nuisance to update -- you can't
differentiate testing and unstable because of that, eg, and when we're due
for a release we end up having testing/unstable pretend they're really
stable already for a while, eg. Updating it more often just makes that
more of a nuisance.


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: