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

Bug#944351: marked as done (Providing minor version somewhere in /etc/os-release in buster)

Your message dated Sun, 26 Apr 2020 15:42:00 +0200
with message-id <20200426134200.GA7053@chou>
and subject line Re: Bug#944351: Providing minor version somewhere in /etc/os-release in buster
has caused the Debian Bug report #944351,
regarding Providing minor version somewhere in /etc/os-release in buster
to be marked as done.

This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.

(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact owner@bugs.debian.org
immediately.)


-- 
944351: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=944351
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact owner@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message --- 
Package: release.debian.org
Severity: normal
Tags: buster
User: release.debian.org@packages.debian.org
Usertags: pu

Dear Release Managers:

I received this bug from one of the ansible upstream authors:

https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=931197

asking to include information about minor version somewhere in /etc/os-release.

I first said "not yet" because we were very close to the release of buster
and the behaviour of /etc/debian_version and /etc/os-release was
already "documented" or "announced" in base-files changelog, as usual.
My plan was to consider that for bullseye.

However, there is a glitch in lsb-release:

https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=939733

We could revert the change in lsb-release so that it looks at
/etc/debian_version again, but we could also do the change
in base-files now and fix this glitch in the most standard way.

So: Would you approve that base-files 10.3+deb10u2 for Debian 10.2 has
VERSION_ID="10.2" in /etc/os-release (and 10.x from now on) instead of
"10"?

My only problem with this is how we would explain the change
after having promised (sort of) that the file would not
change in such way in 10.x.

On the other hand, people who use constructs like
{{ ansible_distribution_major_version }}, which is probably a lot
better than parsing the file by hand, would not be affected at all.

Thanks.

--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message --- 
On Fri, Nov 08, 2019 at 01:17:20PM +0100, Santiago Vila wrote:
> Package: release.debian.org
> Severity: normal
> Tags: buster
> User: release.debian.org@packages.debian.org
> Usertags: pu
> 
> Dear Release Managers:
> 
> I received this bug from one of the ansible upstream authors:
> 
> https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=931197
> 
> asking to include information about minor version somewhere in /etc/os-release.
> 
I think we should leave things as they are, at the very least for
buster.  Closing.

Cheers,
Julien

--- End Message ---
Reply to: