On 29/12/21 19:37, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
On Wed, 29 Dec 2021, Gioele Barabucci wrote:
Instead of using LSB packages, this version of `lsb_release` uses the
information in `/etc/os-release`. Nevertheless, the output of this version is
/etc/os-release DOES NOT contain enough information for ls
Hi,
Just my 2 cents on that:
> VERSION_ID=unstable
Already in an issue to base-files:
https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=931197
> VERSION_CODENAME=sid
Does this have been/have-to-be reported to base-files?
But regarding 'man os-release', they are both optional, isn't it?
Reg
On Wed, 29 Dec 2021, Gioele Barabucci wrote:
> Instead of using LSB packages, this version of `lsb_release` uses the
> information in `/etc/os-release`. Nevertheless, the output of this version is
/etc/os-release DOES NOT contain enough information for lsb_release:
(sid-amd64)tglase@tglase:~ $ c
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
X-Debbugs-Cc: debian-init-divers...@chiark.greenend.org.uk
* Package name: lsb-release-minimal
Version : 0.1
Upstream Author : Gioele Barabucci
* URL : https://gioele.io/lsb-release-minimal
* License : ISC
Programming Lang:
4 matches
Mail list logo