Package: base-files
Version: 12.3
Dear base-files maintainer,
this is a followup to #1008735 to provide 3rd-party software authors
with better clarity (and confirmations) about Debian's approach to the
information shipped in `os-release`.
A quick summary: `os-release(5)` is the only currently supported
cross-distro API to retrieve operating system identification data.
With this in mind, it seems correct, based on the content of the
`os-release` file shipped by `base-files`, to state that:
1. Debian has no concept of "release version" (codified in `os-release`
in `VERSION_ID`) for operating systems built using the software
published in the suites "unstable" and "testing". These operating system
instances just exist and have no version.
(For comparison, other rolling distros publish version IDs for
snapshots. For example openSUSE Tumbleweed uses a date like "20220926",
Fedora rawhide uses the upcoming version number "38".)
2. Debian does not desire to distinguish between OS installations based
on unstable and those based on testing using their codename (codified in
`os-release` in `VERSION_CODENAME`). The same string (the name of the
upcoming stable version) will be thus be used for both versions and it
should not be possible for 3rd-party software to distinguish between them.
(For comparison, the Release files in the archive use "Codename: sid"
for unstable.)
Is this a correct reading?
Aside from the current situation summarized in the above points, could
you please consider again the idea of having the suite name in
`VERSION_ID` ("testing", "unstable") and meaningful codenames in
`VERSION_CODENAME` ("bookworm", "sid"), at least to simplify the work of
3rd-party software authors?
Regards,
--
Gioele Barabucci
