Bug#681474: Dpkg::Vendor: should support /etc/os-release and /etc/os-release.d/*

2012-10-29 Thread Raphael Hertzog
On Sun, 28 Oct 2012, Jonathan Nieder wrote: Raphael Hertzog wrote: Why would it be better to deploy a dpkg-specific file over a generic file even if dpkg is the only software making use of that generic file? Because it makes the purpose of the file

Bug#681474: Dpkg::Vendor: should support /etc/os-release and /etc/os-release.d/*

2012-10-29 Thread Jonathan Nieder
Raphael Hertzog wrote: In both cases the purpose of the file is to provide identification information about the OS. Identification for what purpose? So I know which programmer to complain to when running into compatibility bugs, like the HTTP User-Agent field? For display and theming? To

Bug#681474: Dpkg::Vendor: should support /etc/os-release and /etc/os-release.d/*

2012-10-29 Thread Raphael Hertzog
On Mon, 29 Oct 2012, Jonathan Nieder wrote: Raphael Hertzog wrote: In both cases the purpose of the file is to provide identification information about the OS. Identification for what purpose? So I know which programmer to complain to when running into compatibility bugs, like the HTTP

Bug#681474: Dpkg::Vendor: should support /etc/os-release and /etc/os-release.d/*

2012-10-29 Thread Jonathan Nieder
Raphael Hertzog wrote: Surely you don't have to invent X ways to identify the OS just because you want to identify it in different contexts? Yes, I think this is where we disagree. Using a single source is just a better design that avoids mistakes where /etc/dpkg/origins/default says Debian

Bug#681474: Dpkg::Vendor: should support /etc/os-release and /etc/os-release.d/*

2012-10-28 Thread Raphael Hertzog
Hi, On Sat, 27 Oct 2012, Guillem Jover wrote: Control: tag -1 wontfix *shrug* I filed it because I did not found the time to implement it in a reasonable delay. But I might still want to implement it at some point. On Fri, 2012-07-13 at 15:44:22 +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote: To be able to

Bug#681474: Dpkg::Vendor: should support /etc/os-release and /etc/os-release.d/*

2012-10-28 Thread Jonathan Nieder
Raphael Hertzog wrote: Why would it be better to deploy a dpkg-specific file over a generic file even if dpkg is the only software making use of that generic file? Because it makes the purpose of the file clearer, and if other programs make use of files with

Bug#681474: Dpkg::Vendor: should support /etc/os-release and /etc/os-release.d/*

2012-10-28 Thread Guillem Jover
On Sun, 2012-10-28 at 21:04:31 +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote: On Sat, 27 Oct 2012, Guillem Jover wrote: Control: tag -1 wontfix *shrug* I filed it because I did not found the time to implement it in a reasonable delay. But I might still want to implement it at some point. Well,

Bug#681474: Dpkg::Vendor: should support /etc/os-release and /etc/os-release.d/*

2012-10-26 Thread Guillem Jover
Control: tag -1 wontfix On Fri, 2012-07-13 at 15:44:22 +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote: Package: libdpkg-perl Version: 1.16.7 Severity: wishlist To be able to retrieve information from all the parents, the various os-release files can be stored in /etc/os-release.d/id and /etc/os-release

Bug#681474: Dpkg::Vendor: should support /etc/os-release and /etc/os-release.d/*

2012-07-13 Thread Raphael Hertzog
Package: libdpkg-perl Version: 1.16.7 Severity: wishlist Debian is now shipping an /etc/os-release file and this file can provide all the information that /etc/dpkg/origins/* files can provide. See http://www.freedesktop.org/software/systemd/man/os-release.html for the various fields that are