Russ Allbery wrote:
> Andrew Deason <[email protected]> writes:
>
>> Secondly, this is easily modifiable by distributions. I think the
>> closest thing Linux has to a "platform" like those of commercial unices
>> (and maybe the BSDs) is a distribution-specific moniker. Just because
>> the OpenAFS project doesn't include anything more specific than
>> "$arch_linux26" by default doesn't mean we can't have a distro-specific
>> tag by default in front of that (and the RPMs related to this thread are
>> already doing that). That seems like a pretty easy way to get more
>> granularity and be more 'modern'.
> I suppose I could do that in Debian.  I'd feel more comfortable doing it
> if any Debian user had ever indicated a desire for an @sys that identified
> the Debian stable version (which would be the obvious thing to put in
> there).
>
> If I do that for Debian, though, Ubuntu is going to be a mess.

We have been using:

afs_arch=`dpkg --print-architecture`
afs_version=`lsb_release -s -r | sed -e 's/\.//g' | tr -d "[a-zA-Z]"`
afs_dist=`lsb_release -s -i|tr "[:upper:]" "[:lower:]"`
afs_sysname="${afs_arch}_${afs_dist}${afs_version}"

for years, on ubuntu.

/Björn

>


Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature

Reply via email to