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_RELEASE=4.0 > > > DISTRIB_CODENAME=etch > > > 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. Cheers, aj
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
