On Fri, 02 Aug 2024 at 09:07:12 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Luca Boccassi <bl...@debian.org> writes:
> > It is correct as-is. VERSION_ID is meant to identify a release, not
> > updates or point releases. A release as in, Debian Bookworm, or Fedora
> > 40, or Ubuntu Noble, and so on.
>
> Why would you not want to identify point releases? This really surprises
> me.
I think the idea is that two releases have a different VERSION_ID if and
only if they can both be fully up to date, but still remain different. If
we make the analogy of git, VERSION_ID labels a branch, not a tag.
If Debian 12 is like a git branch (and unstable is like git main),
then Debian 12.0 and 12.6 are more like tags on the Debian 12 branch.
Debian 12 is still maintained and changing, but Debian 12.6 was a point
in time, it already happened, and now it's never going to change.
So, 11 vs. 12 vs. 13 are different VERSION_IDs, because a fully updated
Debian 11 is not the same as a fully updated Debian 12 or 13.
But 12.5 vs. 12.6 don't have different VERSION_IDs, because if you upgrade
Debian 12.5, it *becomes* 12.6: there is no separate 12.5.x branch that
anyone is maintaining as something distinct from 12.6.
(It might make sense for there to be a defined field in os-release for
"what's the most recent point release we've caught up with?" *as well*,
but VERSION_ID is not that.)
smcv
