Bug#1008735: base-files: /etc/os-release should contain VERSION variables for testing and unstable
El 6/11/22 a las 2:01, Witold Baryluk escribió: I am somehow confused by the current solution in base-files 12.3. Please note that what I did in 12.3 does not try to solve everything, only what it was feasible to do in base-files. I do not claim that the situation may not improve, only that such improvement, if any, should come from some place other than base-files. bookworm: [...] sid: [...] How one can distinguish between testing / bookworm and sid now? Do I need to parse files in /etc/apt/sources.list.d/ now, maybe using `apt-cache policy base-files` ? Yes, looking at your apt sources would be a good idea. Note that the unability to determine the distribution just by looking at files provided by base-files has been the case for a lot of time, in fact it is documented in the base-files FAQ: /usr/share/doc/base-files/FAQ However, just because the real distribution may be inferred by looking at your apt sources does not necessarily mean that you have to do that by hand. In theory, it would be possible to modify lsb_release command so that it looks at your apt sources for you. But that's not something that may be done in base-files anymore. Thanks.
Bug#1008735: base-files: /etc/os-release should contain VERSION variables for testing and unstable
Package: base-files Version: 12.3 Followup-For: Bug #1008735 X-Debbugs-Cc: witold.bary...@gmail.com I am somehow confused by the current solution in base-files 12.3. bookworm: $ lsb_release -s -i -d -r -c No LSB modules are available. Debian Debian GNU/Linux bookworm/sid n/a bookworm $ sid: $ lsb_release -s -i -d -r -c No LSB modules are available. Debian Debian GNU/Linux bookworm/sid n/a bookworm $ How one can distinguish between testing / bookworm and sid now? Do I need to parse files in /etc/apt/sources.list.d/ now, maybe using `apt-cache policy base-files` ? There are practical situations where bookworm and sid are out of sync for months, and this is important to distinguish in many places. Regards, Witold -- System Information: Debian Release: bookworm/sid APT prefers unstable-debug APT policy: (500, 'unstable-debug'), (500, 'unstable') Architecture: amd64 (x86_64) Foreign Architectures: i386 Kernel: Linux 6.1.0-rc3 (SMP w/32 CPU threads; PREEMPT) Kernel taint flags: TAINT_WARN, TAINT_UNSIGNED_MODULE Locale: LANG=en_US.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=en_US.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8), LANGUAGE not set Shell: /bin/sh linked to /usr/bin/dash Init: systemd (via /run/systemd/system) Versions of packages base-files depends on: ii gawk [awk] 1:5.1.0-1 ii mawk [awk] 1.3.4.20200120-3.1 base-files recommends no packages. base-files suggests no packages. -- no debconf information
Bug#1008735: base-files: /etc/os-release should contain VERSION variables for testing and unstable
On Thu, Oct 13, 2022 at 4:03 PM Masahiro Yamada wrote:
>
> Hi Sedat,
>
> Sorry for my late replay.
>
>
> On Mon, Oct 3, 2022 at 6:56 PM Sedat Dilek wrote:
> >
> > [ CC linux-kbuild folks (see [0] ]
>
>
>
> Can you give me more context of this email?
>
>
>
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > I am using Debian/unstable AMD64 and doing Linux-kernel upstream
> > development and testing.
> >
> > People using bindeb-pkg (mkdebian) from Linux-kernel sources
> > (scripts/packages) to build and test their selfmade Debian kernels get
> > a now a "n/a" for distribution.
>
>
>
> Right, if I try the latest sid,
> "lsb_release -cs" returns "n/a".
> It returned "sid" before IIRC.
>
>
> What was changed in Debian?
> Any change in the lsb_release program?
>
Hi Masahiro San,
The Debian maintainer(s) changed the co-working of these packages:
root# dpkg -l | egrep 'base-files|lsb-release' | awk '/^ii/ {print $1
" " $2 " " $3}' | column -t
ii base-files 12.3
ii lsb-release 12.0-1
ii lsb-release-minimal 12.0-1
My findings:
First, /usr/bin/lsb_release-11.4 (python) VS.
/usr/bin/lsb_release-12.0 (shell) - both files attached.
Second, version 12.0 checks now explicitly for values in /etc/os-release.
As a side note: All these changes were not mentioned in lsb-release
debian/changelog.
The easiest way to fix this is to add...
VERSION_ID=sid (or unstable)
...to /etc/os-release file.
Just for the sake of technical correctness:
"sid" or "unstable" is not a numerical value - it's a string.
In version 12.3 of base-files "VERSION_CODENAME=bookworm" was added on
users' request.
Last checks:
Original (base-files version 12.0):
[ /etc/os-release ]
PRETTY_NAME="Debian GNU/Linux bookworm/sid"
NAME="Debian GNU/Linux"
VERSION_CODENAME=bookworm
ID=debian
HOME_URL="https://www.debian.org/;
SUPPORT_URL="https://www.debian.org/support;
BUG_REPORT_URL="https://bugs.debian.org/;
root# lsb_release --all
No LSB modules are available.
Distributor ID: Debian
Description:Debian GNU/Linux bookworm/sid
Release:n/a
Codename: bookworm
Modified:
[ /etc/os-release ]
PRETTY_NAME="Debian GNU/Linux bookworm/sid"
NAME="Debian GNU/Linux"
VERSION_CODENAME=bookworm
VERSION_ID=sid
ID=debian
HOME_URL="https://www.debian.org/;
SUPPORT_URL="https://www.debian.org/support;
BUG_REPORT_URL="https://bugs.debian.org/;
root# lsb_release --all
No LSB modules are available.
Distributor ID: Debian
Description:Debian GNU/Linux bookworm/sid
Release:sid
Codename: bookworm
More comments see https://bugs.debian.org/1008735.
-Sedat-
>
>
>
>
>
> >
> > Background (see [1]):
> >
> > [ scripts/package/mkdebian ]
> >
> > # Try to determine distribution
> > if [ -n "$KDEB_CHANGELOG_DIST" ]; then
> > distribution=$KDEB_CHANGELOG_DIST
> > # In some cases lsb_release returns the codename as n/a, which breaks
> > dpkg-parsechangelog
> > elif distribution=$(lsb_release -cs 2>/dev/null) && [ -n
> > "$distribution" ] && [ "$distribution" != "n/a" ]; then
> > : # nothing to do in this case
> > else
> > distribution="unstable"
> > echo >&2 "Using default distribution of 'unstable' in the changelog"
> > echo >&2 "Install lsb-release or set \$KDEB_CHANGELOG_DIST
> > explicitly"
> > fi
> >
> > Personally, I set hardcoded in my kernel build-script as a workaround:
> >
> > distribution="bookworm"
> >
> > Gioele suggested me to enrich /etc/os-release with:
> >
> > VERSION_ID=unstable <--- XXX: I prefer sid because of PRETTY_NAME and
> > it's shorter
> > VERSION_CODENAME=bookworm
> >
> > In the end the file looks like:
> >
> > PRETTY_NAME="Debian GNU/Linux bookworm/sid"
> > NAME="Debian GNU/Linux"
> > ID=debian
> > VERSION_ID=sid
> > VERSION_CODENAME=bookworm
> > HOME_URL="https://www.debian.org/;
> > SUPPORT_URL="https://www.debian.org/support;
> > BUG_REPORT_URL="https://bugs.debian.org/;
> >
> > ...and this seems to work:
> >
> > # lsb_release -cs
> > No LSB modules are available.
> > bookworm
> >
> > Please, provide a solution not to break workflows that were successful
> > for years.
> >
> > Thanks.
> >
> > Best regards,
> > -Sedat-
> >
> > [0]
> > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/MAINTAINERS#n11005
> > [1]
> > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/scripts/package/mkdebian#n123
>
>
>
> --
> Best Regards
> Masahiro Yamada
lsb_release-11.4
Description: Unix manual page
lsb_release-12.0
Description: Binary data
Bug#1008735: base-files: /etc/os-release should contain VERSION variables for testing and unstable
Hi Sedat, Sorry for my late replay. On Mon, Oct 3, 2022 at 6:56 PM Sedat Dilek wrote: > > [ CC linux-kbuild folks (see [0] ] Can you give me more context of this email? > Hi, > > I am using Debian/unstable AMD64 and doing Linux-kernel upstream > development and testing. > > People using bindeb-pkg (mkdebian) from Linux-kernel sources > (scripts/packages) to build and test their selfmade Debian kernels get > a now a "n/a" for distribution. Right, if I try the latest sid, "lsb_release -cs" returns "n/a". It returned "sid" before IIRC. What was changed in Debian? Any change in the lsb_release program? > > Background (see [1]): > > [ scripts/package/mkdebian ] > > # Try to determine distribution > if [ -n "$KDEB_CHANGELOG_DIST" ]; then > distribution=$KDEB_CHANGELOG_DIST > # In some cases lsb_release returns the codename as n/a, which breaks > dpkg-parsechangelog > elif distribution=$(lsb_release -cs 2>/dev/null) && [ -n > "$distribution" ] && [ "$distribution" != "n/a" ]; then > : # nothing to do in this case > else > distribution="unstable" > echo >&2 "Using default distribution of 'unstable' in the changelog" > echo >&2 "Install lsb-release or set \$KDEB_CHANGELOG_DIST explicitly" > fi > > Personally, I set hardcoded in my kernel build-script as a workaround: > > distribution="bookworm" > > Gioele suggested me to enrich /etc/os-release with: > > VERSION_ID=unstable <--- XXX: I prefer sid because of PRETTY_NAME and > it's shorter > VERSION_CODENAME=bookworm > > In the end the file looks like: > > PRETTY_NAME="Debian GNU/Linux bookworm/sid" > NAME="Debian GNU/Linux" > ID=debian > VERSION_ID=sid > VERSION_CODENAME=bookworm > HOME_URL="https://www.debian.org/; > SUPPORT_URL="https://www.debian.org/support; > BUG_REPORT_URL="https://bugs.debian.org/; > > ...and this seems to work: > > # lsb_release -cs > No LSB modules are available. > bookworm > > Please, provide a solution not to break workflows that were successful > for years. > > Thanks. > > Best regards, > -Sedat- > > [0] > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/MAINTAINERS#n11005 > [1] > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/scripts/package/mkdebian#n123 -- Best Regards Masahiro Yamada
Bug#1008735: base-files: /etc/os-release should contain VERSION variables for testing and unstable
El 3/10/22 a las 11:55, Sedat Dilek escribió: VERSION_ID=sid VERSION_CODENAME=bookworm This is "schizophrenic", so to speak, and I don't think it is a good idea. I've simply added VERSION_CODENAME=bookworm. The only caveat is that testing and unstable are sides of the same coin, but this is already explained in /usr/share/doc/base-files/FAQ. As a result, if you take the VERSION_CODENAME string and include it in a kernel version string somewhere, the meaning of such string is that the kernel image was created in either a bookworm or a sid distribution. I think this is good enough for most purposes. If you need more fine-tuning, somebody should investigate what kind of magic lsb_release did in the past and reenable part of it. Thanks.
Bug#1008735: base-files: /etc/os-release should contain VERSION variables for testing and unstable
[ CC linux-kbuild folks (see [0] ] Hi, I am using Debian/unstable AMD64 and doing Linux-kernel upstream development and testing. People using bindeb-pkg (mkdebian) from Linux-kernel sources (scripts/packages) to build and test their selfmade Debian kernels get a now a "n/a" for distribution. Background (see [1]): [ scripts/package/mkdebian ] # Try to determine distribution if [ -n "$KDEB_CHANGELOG_DIST" ]; then distribution=$KDEB_CHANGELOG_DIST # In some cases lsb_release returns the codename as n/a, which breaks dpkg-parsechangelog elif distribution=$(lsb_release -cs 2>/dev/null) && [ -n "$distribution" ] && [ "$distribution" != "n/a" ]; then : # nothing to do in this case else distribution="unstable" echo >&2 "Using default distribution of 'unstable' in the changelog" echo >&2 "Install lsb-release or set \$KDEB_CHANGELOG_DIST explicitly" fi Personally, I set hardcoded in my kernel build-script as a workaround: distribution="bookworm" Gioele suggested me to enrich /etc/os-release with: VERSION_ID=unstable <--- XXX: I prefer sid because of PRETTY_NAME and it's shorter VERSION_CODENAME=bookworm In the end the file looks like: PRETTY_NAME="Debian GNU/Linux bookworm/sid" NAME="Debian GNU/Linux" ID=debian VERSION_ID=sid VERSION_CODENAME=bookworm HOME_URL="https://www.debian.org/; SUPPORT_URL="https://www.debian.org/support; BUG_REPORT_URL="https://bugs.debian.org/; ...and this seems to work: # lsb_release -cs No LSB modules are available. bookworm Please, provide a solution not to break workflows that were successful for years. Thanks. Best regards, -Sedat- [0] https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/MAINTAINERS#n11005 [1] https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/scripts/package/mkdebian#n123
Bug#1008735: base-files: /etc/os-release should contain VERSION variables for testing and unstable
Package: base-files Version: 12.2 Followup-For: Bug #1008735 X-Debbugs-Cc: witold.bary...@gmail.com I also noticed the issue today. For the context I use it for compiling mesa by outside script: https://gist.github.com/baryluk/1041204eff4cc4fad6f1508afe67b562/5771c245a55760b7f25b05dc0b397789b27ac0b7#file-mesa-build-sh-L421-L454 as depending on a version of Debian / Ubuntu, I must manually specify some LLVM related packages with specific version explicitly, and which compilers to invoke exactly. And while for testing and unstable, it requires sporadic update to the script, it is still only relable and easy way to do this using lsb_release info. -- System Information: Debian Release: bookworm/sid APT prefers unstable-debug APT policy: (500, 'unstable-debug'), (500, 'unstable') Architecture: amd64 (x86_64) Foreign Architectures: i386 Kernel: Linux 6.0.0-rc5 (SMP w/32 CPU threads; PREEMPT) Kernel taint flags: TAINT_WARN, TAINT_UNSIGNED_MODULE Locale: LANG=en_US.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=en_US.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8), LANGUAGE not set Shell: /bin/sh linked to /usr/bin/dash Init: systemd (via /run/systemd/system) Versions of packages base-files depends on: ii gawk [awk] 1:5.1.0-1 ii mawk [awk] 1.3.4.20200120-3.1 base-files recommends no packages. base-files suggests no packages. -- no debconf information
