Your message dated Sat, 14 Jun 2014 18:28:23 +0200
with message-id <20140614162823.ga28...@gaara.hadrons.org>
and subject line Re: Bug#681474: Dpkg::Vendor: should support /etc/os-release
and /etc/os-release.d/*
has caused the Debian Bug report #681474,
regarding Dpkg::Vendor: should support /etc/os-release and /etc/os-release.d/*
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.
(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact ow...@bugs.debian.org
immediately.)
--
681474: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=681474
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message ---
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 supported and in particular ID_LIKE,
HOME_URL and BUG_REPORT_URL.
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
could become a symlink.
Dpkg::Vendor should thus be updated to be able to use those (cross-distro
standardized) files when they exist so that we can deprecate the
debian-specific /etc/dpkg/origins/*.
Cheers,
--
Raphaël Hertzog ◈ Debian Developer
Get the Debian Administrator's Handbook:
→ http://debian-handbook.info/get/
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On Mon, 2012-10-29 at 00:47:11 +0100, Guillem Jover wrote:
> 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, obviously, I object. It was not meant as “I will not fix it”,
> it was meant as “I don't think this has to be implemented, at all”.
Closing, for this and all other reasons given in the bug report.
Guillem
--- End Message ---
