* Anthony Towns [Thu, 27 Dec 2007 17:34:49 +1000]:
> On Wed, Dec 26, 2007 at 11:53:25PM +0100, Adeodato Sim?? wrote:
> > *Personally*, I like the idea of Javier Fern??ndez-Sanguino expressed in
> > the mail linked above of keeping debian_version as is, and introducing
> > /etc/lsb-release with detailed information like:
> > DISTRIB_ID=Debian
> > DISTRIB_RELEASE=4.0
> > DISTRIB_CODENAME=etch
> > DISTRIB_DESCRIPTION="Debian GNU/Linux 4.0 'etch'"
> The problem with base-files providing /etc/debian_version is that it means
> /etc/debian_version can really only tell you what version of base-files
> is installed. So if you upgrade every other package but base-files from
> 4.0r1 to 4.0r2, you have all the functionality of 4.0r2 but get reported as
> 4.0r1, and if you just upgrade base-files, you get reported as 4.0r2 while
> still having the bugs from 4.0r1 that were meant to have been fixed.
Yes, of course. And this is brought up whenever there's talk about
/etc/debian_version. :-)
However, I believe that most people wanting more detail in that file, or
another file, are aware of such limitations, but probably only are
seeking its use in scenarios where they'll now they'll not apply, eg. a
farm of machines which are just dist-upgrades, so it'll be up to date,
or not.
Cheers,
--
Adeodato Simó dato at net.com.org.es
Debian Developer adeodato at debian.org
He who has not a good memory should never take upon himself the trade of lying.
-- Michel de Montaigne
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
