On 2013-06-01 20:48, Christian PERRIER wrote:
(/me subscribed to -release)
Okay, I'll try and remember. We have to tend towards assuming that people aren't, in the case of -release.
Quoting Adam D. Barratt (adam@adam-barratt.org.uk):On 2013-06-01 6:01, Christian PERRIER wrote: >Quoting Adam D. Barratt (adam@adam-barratt.org.uk): > >>We've had a quick chat about this, and our preference would be for >>the option you've termed "ugly". Now that we've stopped using the >>three part versioning, it seems more logical for wheezy to be >>"Debian 7" and for the issue files to reflect that. > >If this is the chosen design, why not have /etc/issue forget about >the >".0" part, then? That's exactly what Santiago's "ugly" option does. debian_release continues to change at each point release, the other files are modified to just use "7".Is there a rationale for *not* using Santiago's good option?
Personally, I'm not convinced that it's particularly interesting in terms of a general "system identification" (as issue(5) refers to it) to include the point release version; the system is running Wheezy or Debian 7. debian_version otoh will appear in information such as reportbug output, so having the precision there seems more useful.
There's also a higher chance that issue{,.net} will be locally modified. I don't know how widespread that practice is, but I do know that at least one widely available guide to configuring Debian used to suggest doing so in order to add e.g. pre-login messages for SSH connections. (I don't remember which one, but its appearance in documentation at $DAYJOB was incorporated from said guide some years ago.)
Regards, Adam