On Sun, Jun 12, 2005 at 06:45:25PM -0600, Bob Proulx wrote: > Paul E Condon wrote: > > Jochen Schulz wrote: > > > Jerome BENOIT: > > > > I have just migrate to Etch, and I have a naive question. > > > > My current /etc/debian_version file still contains "3.1", > > > > which is valid release for Sarge: > > > > 1] what must /etc/debian_version contain for an Etch box ? > > > This is not yet decided, I think. The file is part of the package > > > base-files and will be updated if there is a consesus on the version > > > number for etch. > > The number is at this time not decided. It is picked by the release > manager for the release. At this time I do not believe a release > number for Etch has been announced. > > > > > 2] does it really matter ? > > > > > > No. The file is just there to help scripts find out the version > > > currently installed but I am not aware of any important things depending > > > on it. > > Agreed. > > > This seems to me to be a very un-Debian state of affairs. Is there a bug > > report about this? Is it help to a script to give a manifestly wrong > > answer to such a straightforward question? > > There is no bug there. And to me it seems very Debian. What problem > does this cause?
It purports to be information that is available to script writers when, if fact, it is not information. It does not, in and of itself, cause a problem. It just misleads script writers into believing that there is a really simple way to determine the Debian version, when in fact there is not. At least not by reading this file. It would not be a bug if it were totally undocumented and given another name so that script writers who notice it would not assume falsely that it is useful. -- Paul E Condon [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]