Re: Debian version

[Anders Andersson]

On Tue, Nov 9, 2021 at 1:24 PM Greg Wooledge  wrote:
>
> On Tue, Nov 09, 2021 at 09:22:25AM +, Koler, Nethanel wrote:
> > I am Nati, I am trying to find a variable that is configured in the 
> > linux-headers that can tell me on which Debian I am
>
> This sounds like an X-Y problem.  What's your real objective?
>
> There is NOT a one-to-one correspondence between a Linux kernel version
> and a Debian release version.  Debian allows you the freedom to use
> any kernel you want -- one of Debian's kernels, or one that you built
> yourself, or one that you copied over from an Ubuntu system, or whatever.

Or it might not be Linux at all, like
https://www.debian.org/ports/hurd/ or
https://www.debian.org/ports/kfreebsd-gnu/

Re: Debian version

[Linux-Fan]

Koler, Nethanel writes:


Hi
I am Nati, I am trying to find a variable that is configured in the linux- 
headers that can tell me on which Debian I am


Any reason for not using /etc/os-release instead?
IIRC this one is available on RHEL _and_ Debian systems.


For example in RedHat
After downloading the linux-headers
I can go to cd /usr/src/kernels//include/generated/uapi/linux
There there is a file called version.h
Where they define this variables

#define KERNEL_VERSION(a,b,c) (((a) << 16) + ((b) << 8) + (c))
#define RHEL_MAJOR 8
#define RHEL_MINOR 4

When I tried the same with Debian I got to a dead end
Can you please help me find something similar in the linux-headers for  
Debian?


I tried

$ grep -RF Debian /usr/src

and got a few hits, among those are

| .../include/generated/autoconf.h:#define CONFIG_CC_VERSION_TEXT "gcc-10 (Debian 
10.2.1-6) 10.2.1 20210110"
| .../include/generated/compile.h:#define LINUX_COMPILER "gcc-10 (Debian 10.2.1-6) 
10.2.1 20210110, GNU ld (GNU Binutils for Debian) 2.35.2"
| .../include/generated/compile.h:#define UTS_VERSION "#1 SMP Debian 5.10.46-5 
(2021-09-23)"
| .../include/generated/package.h:#define LINUX_PACKAGE_ID " Debian 5.10.46-5"

If your goal is to evaluate them programatically during compile-time of a C  
project, this might not be ideal though, because all of the values I found  
seem to be strings.


HTH
Linux-Fan

öö


pgpliwZzHZIW3.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Debian version

[Greg Wooledge]

On Tue, Nov 09, 2021 at 09:22:25AM +, Koler, Nethanel wrote:
> I am Nati, I am trying to find a variable that is configured in the 
> linux-headers that can tell me on which Debian I am 

This sounds like an X-Y problem.  What's your real objective?

There is NOT a one-to-one correspondence between a Linux kernel version
and a Debian release version.  Debian allows you the freedom to use
any kernel you want -- one of Debian's kernels, or one that you built
yourself, or one that you copied over from an Ubuntu system, or whatever.

Even if you use a Debian kernel, it might not have come from the Debian
version that you're currently running.  You might still be using a 4.x
kernel on bullseye, for instance, due to incompatibility with one of
your devices.  Or you might be using a backported kernel from a future
release because of hardware needs.

> For example in RedHat 
> After downloading the linux-headers
> I can go to cd /usr/src/kernels//include/generated/uapi/linux
> There there is a file called version.h
> Where they define this variables  
> 
> #define KERNEL_VERSION(a,b,c) (((a) << 16) + ((b) << 8) + (c))
> #define RHEL_MAJOR 8
> #define RHEL_MINOR 4

That sounds like a really bad idea to me.

At *best* this would only tell you what version of Red Hat Enterprise
Linux the developer thought the kernel was being built on.  At worst,
it's a complete fabrication.  In *all* cases, this number is baked into
the kernel, at compile time, and does not reflect anything about the
actual system that the kernel is booting.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think RHEL does not support upgrades.  If
you're running RHEL 7 and you want to upgrade to RHEL 8, you have to
reinstall.

Therefore, it's *sort of* conceivable that the version number which is
baked into the kernel might mean something, but only if the administrator
of the box has actually followed RHEL's advice and never upgraded it,
outside of official RHEL support channels.

That doesn't work for Debian, at all.

Debian's greatest strength is its ability to be upgraded.  A great deal
of development time is put into achieving this goal.  A Debian system is
expected to be installed one time, and upgraded many times, until it's
finally retired.

At any point in that lifespan, you might have a kernel which has an older
release's version number baked into it, on a newer release of Debian.  The
version number inside the kernel would therefore be inaccurate.

Re: debian version ID

[Lisi Reisz]

On Monday 29 August 2016 20:45:21 Andrew M.A. Cater wrote:
> /etc/debian_version coincidentally adds the minor
> release

Whatever the reason, it is very helpful to some of us that it does so, so long 
may it continue to do so!! :-)

Thank you for the helpful explanation, Andrew.

Lisi

Re: debian version ID

[Andrew M.A. Cater]

On Mon, Aug 29, 2016 at 06:27:39PM +, Andrew M.A. Cater wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 29, 2016 at 12:27:31PM +0100, Jonathan de Boyne Pollard wrote:
> > Felix Miata:
> > 
> > >Will someone please explain (or point to, since it's not in release
> > >notes), why:
> > >1: /etc/os-release (in Jessie at least) does not include the point release
> > >version as represented by /etc/debian_version
> > 
> > Andrew M.A. Cater:
> > 
> > >/etc/os-release just contains major version - the absolute need for minor
> > >version is small.
> > 
> > Jonathan de Boyne Pollard:
> > 
> > >You are going to have to explain that to its manual page, which gives
> > >VERSION_ID=11.04 as an example of what can be in the file.
> > 
> > Pascal Hambourg:
> > 
> > >This is obviously not a Debian version. Rather looks like Ubuntu.
> > 
> > That is irrelevant.  M. Miata asked for a reason.  M. Cater responded.
> > Either M. Cater is responding to explain why or xe is not explainining but
> > merely repeating what M. Miata already knows and wants to know the reason
> > for.  As an explanation why, it is clearly wrong, from simply reading the
> > user manual.  What the version number in the manual might be is simply
> > irrelevant.
> 
> What part of the man pages are you finding hard to read: it's worth noting 
> that much of this is optional
> 
> The below is the version from Debian Jessie [/etc/os-release is a symlink 
> to/from /usr/lib/os-release]
> 
> PRETTY_NAME="Debian GNU/Linux 8 (jessie)"
> NAME="Debian GNU/Linux"
> VERSION_ID="8"
> VERSION="8 (jessie)"
> ID=debian
> HOME_URL="http://www.debian.org/";
> SUPPORT_URL="http://www.debian.org/support";
> BUG_REPORT_URL="https://bugs.debian.org/";
> 
> PRETTY_NAME is a name in a format suitable for presentation to the user. May 
> (or may not) contain a release name or OS version of some kind. If it's not 
> set,
> the default is Linux.
> NAME identifies the operating system without a version component
> VERSION_ID  is a lower case string, mostly numeric identifyng the OS version 
> for use by scripts. Optional. 
> [The examples given in the manpage are for Fedora and Ubuntu releases. NOTE: 
> These are examples and are not canonical since the whole field is optional.]
> VERSION identifies the OS version, possibly including a code name
> ID is a lower case identifier identifying the OS suitable for use in scripts
> HOME_URL, SUPPORT_URL and BUG_REPORT_URL are all optional: intended for 
> distributions providing community support and not all of these need be given.
> 
> I correctly pointed out that minor versions point releases have been of less 
> relevance since prior to Debian 7 and the last time I can think of them as 
> being very 
> relevant indeed was prior to Debian 4.0
> 
> Debian isn't Ubuntu (or Red Hat Enterprise / CentOS / Fedora / OpenSUSE) ...
> 
> Please don't impute motive to me: please do go away and read and learn as 
> much as you feel able to do before complaining about inconsistencies which 
> aren't.
> I would sinerely commend to you the Debian handbook - apt install 
> debian-handbook will get you the PDF version: it is also worth springing for 
> a paper version
> to keep at the computer side. [Also, obviously, at 
> https://www.debian.org/doc/user-manuals/#debian-handbook in HTML.]
> 
> Alternatively, others less charitable might recommend Eric Raymond's classic: 
> How To Ask Questions The Smart Way www.catb.org/esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
> 
> With every good wish,
> 
> Andy C (Debian user since 1994 and Debian developer since 1995)
> 
> [amaca...@debian.org]

Following up to myself (since I hadn't really bothered previously with 
/etc/debian_version which has, roughly, the same function as /etc/release on 
Red Hat) and thereby 
accidentally answering the original question asked by ?? Felix ?? Miata:

The OS portable version of OS identification is /usr/lib/os-release or 
/etc/os-release as outlined above. /etc/debian_version coincidentally adds the 
minor
release - it doesn't have a man page so I can't check why.

It appears that Ubuntu (mis)uses /etc/debian_version to point out the version 
of Debian from which Ubuntu point releases derive their basis.

Ubuntu releases typically take Debian testing at some point, spend a few months 
cleaning it up to their satisfaction - perhaps adding packages from 
Debian unstable (always, canonically, Sid) - and then release.

There is a mapping at 
http://askubuntu.com/questons/445487/which-ubuntu-version-is-equivalent-to-debian-squeeze
 if this will help anyone, but, as the question
answer points out there may be no feasible exact mapping.

Hope this helps someone at some tme

All the very best,

Andy C

Re: debian version ID

[Andrew M.A. Cater]

On Mon, Aug 29, 2016 at 12:27:31PM +0100, Jonathan de Boyne Pollard wrote:
> Felix Miata:
> 
> >Will someone please explain (or point to, since it's not in release
> >notes), why:
> >1: /etc/os-release (in Jessie at least) does not include the point release
> >version as represented by /etc/debian_version
> 
> Andrew M.A. Cater:
> 
> >/etc/os-release just contains major version - the absolute need for minor
> >version is small.
> 
> Jonathan de Boyne Pollard:
> 
> >You are going to have to explain that to its manual page, which gives
> >VERSION_ID=11.04 as an example of what can be in the file.
> 
> Pascal Hambourg:
> 
> >This is obviously not a Debian version. Rather looks like Ubuntu.
> 
> That is irrelevant.  M. Miata asked for a reason.  M. Cater responded.
> Either M. Cater is responding to explain why or xe is not explainining but
> merely repeating what M. Miata already knows and wants to know the reason
> for.  As an explanation why, it is clearly wrong, from simply reading the
> user manual.  What the version number in the manual might be is simply
> irrelevant.

What part of the man pages are you finding hard to read: it's worth noting that 
much of this is optional

The below is the version from Debian Jessie [/etc/os-release is a symlink 
to/from /usr/lib/os-release]

PRETTY_NAME="Debian GNU/Linux 8 (jessie)"
NAME="Debian GNU/Linux"
VERSION_ID="8"
VERSION="8 (jessie)"
ID=debian
HOME_URL="http://www.debian.org/";
SUPPORT_URL="http://www.debian.org/support";
BUG_REPORT_URL="https://bugs.debian.org/";

PRETTY_NAME is a name in a format suitable for presentation to the user. May 
(or may not) contain a release name or OS version of some kind. If it's not set,
the default is Linux.
NAME identifies the operating system without a version component
VERSION_ID  is a lower case string, mostly numeric identifyng the OS version 
for use by scripts. Optional. 
[The examples given in the manpage are for Fedora and Ubuntu releases. NOTE: 
These are examples and are not canonical since the whole field is optional.]
VERSION identifies the OS version, possibly including a code name
ID is a lower case identifier identifying the OS suitable for use in scripts
HOME_URL, SUPPORT_URL and BUG_REPORT_URL are all optional: intended for 
distributions providing community support and not all of these need be given.

I correctly pointed out that minor versions point releases have been of less 
relevance since prior to Debian 7 and the last time I can think of them as 
being very 
relevant indeed was prior to Debian 4.0

Debian isn't Ubuntu (or Red Hat Enterprise / CentOS / Fedora / OpenSUSE) ...

Please don't impute motive to me: please do go away and read and learn as much 
as you feel able to do before complaining about inconsistencies which aren't.
I would sinerely commend to you the Debian handbook - apt install 
debian-handbook will get you the PDF version: it is also worth springing for a 
paper version
to keep at the computer side. [Also, obviously, at 
https://www.debian.org/doc/user-manuals/#debian-handbook in HTML.]

Alternatively, others less charitable might recommend Eric Raymond's classic: 
How To Ask Questions The Smart Way www.catb.org/esr/faqs/smart-questions.html

With every good wish,

Andy C (Debian user since 1994 and Debian developer since 1995)

[amaca...@debian.org]

Re: debian version ID

[David Wright]

On Wed 10 Aug 2016 at 14:31:29 (+0200), Pascal Hambourg wrote:
> Le 10/08/2016 à 03:02, Seeker a écrit :
> >
> >On 8/9/2016 4:49 PM, David Wright wrote:
> >>On Tue 09 Aug 2016 at 13:27:34 (-0700), Seeker wrote:
> >>>
> >>>That was my first thought too, but looking up base-files for one of
> >>>the LTS releases on packages.ubuntu.com and reading
> >>>the change log, looks like to do update the os-release with xx.xx.1,
> >>>xx.xx.2, etc...
> >>
> >>Where was that, then? (To save us all having to search for it.)
> >>
> >>When you say "update the os-release with xx.xx.1", do you
> >>mean the VERSION_ID line? This line is optional anyway,
> >>is it not?
> >
> >http://changelogs.ubuntu.com/changelogs/pool/main/b/base-files/base-files_7.2ubuntu5.5/changelog
> >
> >"base-files (7.2ubuntu5.5) trusty; urgency=medium
> >
> >  * /etc/issue, /etc/issue.net, /etc/lsb-release, /etc/os-release: Bump
> >version number to 14.04.5 in preparation for the point release.
> 
> I downloaded the package from
>  and extracted
> the files.
> 
> /etc/os-release :
> 
> NAME="Ubuntu"
> VERSION="14.04.5 LTS, Trusty Tahr"
> ID=ubuntu
> ID_LIKE=debian
> PRETTY_NAME="Ubuntu 14.04.5 LTS"
> VERSION_ID="14.04"
> HOME_URL="http://www.ubuntu.com/";
> SUPPORT_URL="http://help.ubuntu.com/";
> BUG_REPORT_URL="http://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/";
> 
> /etc/lsb-release :
> 
> DISTRIB_ID=Ubuntu
> DISTRIB_RELEASE=14.04
> DISTRIB_CODENAME=trusty
> DISTRIB_DESCRIPTION="Ubuntu 14.04.5 LTS"

/etc/debian_version :

jessie/sid

which is what one might expect: that's the Debian version that this
ubuntu release is based on. (Putting the Debian point-release here
would be meaningless.)

But ubuntu does not employ a /etc/ubuntu_version file, so os-release
and lsb-release are reasonable alternative locations for indicating
their point-release.

Regardless, I can't see any error in the quotation of Andrew M.A. Cater
that was made by Jonathan de Boyne Pollard (who seemed to be putting
words into his mouth).

-rw-r--r-- 105 Aug  1 08:48 /tmp/base-files_7.2ubuntu5.5_i386/etc/lsb-release
-rw-r--r-- 267 Feb 19  2014 /tmp/base-files_7.2ubuntu5.5_i386/etc/legal
-rw-r--r-- 26 Aug  1 09:04 /tmp/base-files_7.2ubuntu5.5_i386/etc/issue
-rw-r--r-- 19 Aug  1 09:04 /tmp/base-files_7.2ubuntu5.5_i386/etc/issue.net
-rw-r--r-- 11 Feb 19  2014 /tmp/base-files_7.2ubuntu5.5_i386/etc/debian_version
-rw-r--r-- 249 Aug  1 09:04 /tmp/base-files_7.2ubuntu5.5_i386/etc/os-release
-rw-r--r-- 82 Feb 19  2014 
/tmp/base-files_7.2ubuntu5.5_i386/etc/dpkg/origins/debian
-rw-r--r-- 114 Feb 19  2014 
/tmp/base-files_7.2ubuntu5.5_i386/etc/dpkg/origins/ubuntu
-rw-r--r-- 92 Feb 19  2014 /tmp/base-files_7.2ubuntu5.5_i386/etc/host.conf

Cheers,
David.

Re: debian version ID

[Pascal Hambourg]

Le 10/08/2016 à 03:02, Seeker a écrit :


On 8/9/2016 4:49 PM, David Wright wrote:

On Tue 09 Aug 2016 at 13:27:34 (-0700), Seeker wrote:


That was my first thought too, but looking up base-files for one of
the LTS releases on packages.ubuntu.com and reading
the change log, looks like to do update the os-release with xx.xx.1,
xx.xx.2, etc...


Where was that, then? (To save us all having to search for it.)

When you say "update the os-release with xx.xx.1", do you
mean the VERSION_ID line? This line is optional anyway,
is it not?


http://changelogs.ubuntu.com/changelogs/pool/main/b/base-files/base-files_7.2ubuntu5.5/changelog

"base-files (7.2ubuntu5.5) trusty; urgency=medium

  * /etc/issue, /etc/issue.net, /etc/lsb-release, /etc/os-release: Bump
version number to 14.04.5 in preparation for the point release.


I downloaded the package from 
 and extracted the 
files.


/etc/os-release :

NAME="Ubuntu"
VERSION="14.04.5 LTS, Trusty Tahr"
ID=ubuntu
ID_LIKE=debian
PRETTY_NAME="Ubuntu 14.04.5 LTS"
VERSION_ID="14.04"
HOME_URL="http://www.ubuntu.com/";
SUPPORT_URL="http://help.ubuntu.com/";
BUG_REPORT_URL="http://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/";

/etc/lsb-release :

DISTRIB_ID=Ubuntu
DISTRIB_RELEASE=14.04
DISTRIB_CODENAME=trusty
DISTRIB_DESCRIPTION="Ubuntu 14.04.5 LTS"

Re: debian version ID

[Seeker]

On 8/9/2016 4:49 PM, David Wright wrote:

On Tue 09 Aug 2016 at 13:27:34 (-0700), Seeker wrote:

On 8/9/2016 4:34 AM, Pascal Hambourg wrote:

Le 09/08/2016 à 10:44, Jonathan de Boyne Pollard a écrit :

Andrew M.A. Cater:

/etc/os-release just contains major version

You are going to have to explain that to its manual page, which gives
VERSION_ID=11.04 as an example of what can be in the file.

This is obviously not a Debian version. Rather looks like Ubuntu.


You're going to have to explain it to the Ubuntu people, as well;
because they follow what the manual says.

Ubuntu 11.04 is a version based on year+month of release rather
than a major+minor version. Ubuntu 11.04 is as different from
11.10 as 11.10 is different from 12.04.


That was my first thought too, but looking up base-files for one of
the LTS releases on packages.ubuntu.com and reading
the change log, looks like to do update the os-release with xx.xx.1,
xx.xx.2, etc...

Where was that, then? (To save us all having to search for it.)

When you say "update the os-release with xx.xx.1", do you
mean the VERSION_ID line? This line is optional anyway,
is it not?

Cheers,
David.



http://changelogs.ubuntu.com/changelogs/pool/main/b/base-files/base-files_7.2ubuntu5.5/changelog

"base-files (7.2ubuntu5.5) trusty; urgency=medium

  * /etc/issue, /etc/issue.net, /etc/lsb-release, /etc/os-release: Bump
version number to 14.04.5 in preparation for the point release.

 -- Adam Conrad   Mon, 01 Aug 2016 07:48:43 -0600"

Later, Seeker



---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

Re: debian version ID

[David Wright]

On Tue 09 Aug 2016 at 13:27:34 (-0700), Seeker wrote:
> On 8/9/2016 4:34 AM, Pascal Hambourg wrote:
> >Le 09/08/2016 à 10:44, Jonathan de Boyne Pollard a écrit :
> >>Andrew M.A. Cater:
> >>>/etc/os-release just contains major version
> >>
> >>You are going to have to explain that to its manual page, which gives
> >>VERSION_ID=11.04 as an example of what can be in the file.
> >
> >This is obviously not a Debian version. Rather looks like Ubuntu.
> >
> >>You're going to have to explain it to the Ubuntu people, as well;
> >>because they follow what the manual says.
> >
> >Ubuntu 11.04 is a version based on year+month of release rather
> >than a major+minor version. Ubuntu 11.04 is as different from
> >11.10 as 11.10 is different from 12.04.
> >
> That was my first thought too, but looking up base-files for one of
> the LTS releases on packages.ubuntu.com and reading
> the change log, looks like to do update the os-release with xx.xx.1,
> xx.xx.2, etc...

Where was that, then? (To save us all having to search for it.)

When you say "update the os-release with xx.xx.1", do you
mean the VERSION_ID line? This line is optional anyway,
is it not?

Cheers,
David.

Re: debian version ID

[Seeker]

On 8/9/2016 4:34 AM, Pascal Hambourg wrote:

Le 09/08/2016 à 10:44, Jonathan de Boyne Pollard a écrit :

Andrew M.A. Cater:

/etc/os-release just contains major version


You are going to have to explain that to its manual page, which gives
VERSION_ID=11.04 as an example of what can be in the file.


This is obviously not a Debian version. Rather looks like Ubuntu.


You're going to have to explain it to the Ubuntu people, as well;
because they follow what the manual says.


Ubuntu 11.04 is a version based on year+month of release rather than a 
major+minor version. Ubuntu 11.04 is as different from 11.10 as 11.10 
is different from 12.04.


That was my first thought too, but looking up base-files for one of the 
LTS releases on packages.ubuntu.com and reading
the change log, looks like to do update the os-release with xx.xx.1, 
xx.xx.2, etc...


Later, Seeker

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

Re: debian version ID

[Pascal Hambourg]

Le 09/08/2016 à 10:44, Jonathan de Boyne Pollard a écrit :

Andrew M.A. Cater:

/etc/os-release just contains major version


You are going to have to explain that to its manual page, which gives
VERSION_ID=11.04 as an example of what can be in the file.


This is obviously not a Debian version. Rather looks like Ubuntu.


You're going to have to explain it to the Ubuntu people, as well;
because they follow what the manual says.


Ubuntu 11.04 is a version based on year+month of release rather than a 
major+minor version. Ubuntu 11.04 is as different from 11.10 as 11.10 is 
different from 12.04.


Debian uses a different scheme without a minor version number.
The point release is not part of the Debian version.

Re: debian version ID

[Seeker]

On 8/1/2016 1:53 AM, Felix Miata wrote:

Ben Finney composed on 2016-08-01 03:20 (UTC-0400):


Felix Miata wrote:



Will someone please explain (or point to, since it's not in release
notes), why:



1: /etc/os-release (in Jessie at least) does not include the point
release version as represented by /etc/debian_version



The proximate explanation is: Because the API for that file is
different. It describes the stable release for its whole lifetime, not
the updates made since that version of Debian was released.


Given the many possible options[1] for that file's content, one would 
think there would be a way to get the extra detail in, maybe 
VERSION_ID=8 and VERSION="8.5 (Jessie)", or move "Jessie" to 
VERSION_CODENAME and put 8.5 as VERSION.




Think of it like this.

The last "version" of Debian released is 8. The x.4, x.5, etc.. have no 
meaning on the running system, either you have
kept up with the updates and your system is secure, or you have not kept 
up with the updates and your system is

potentially vulnerable.

The installation media is 8.5 because it includes packages that have 
been updated since the initial release and you need

a way to differentiate earlier and later versions of the installation media.

There may be more to x.x the Debian developer side of things, but for us 
end users that all we really need

to know.

It tells you right in the announcement

https://www.debian.org/News/2016/20160604

"*Please note that this update does not constitute a new version of 
Debian 8 *but only updates some of the packages included.
*There is no need to throw away old**"jessie" CDs or DVDs but only to 
update via an up-to-date Debian mirror after an

installation*, to cause any out of date packages to be updated."

Later, Seeker


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

Re: debian version ID

[David Wright]

On Mon 01 Aug 2016 at 02:56:54 (-0400), Felix Miata wrote:
> Will someone please explain (or point to, since it's not in release notes), 
> why:
> 
> 1: /etc/os-release (in Jessie at least) does not include the point
> release version as represented by /etc/debian_version

/etc/os-release is an outward-facing file designed for programs to
find out what distribution of linux is running here. As far as they
are concerned, each Debian version is a rolling release so the point
number is meaningless. Why would you want it?

/etc/debian_version is an inward-facing file for system administrators
and installers. Really, it only interests the latter because even the
point versions are rolling releases between points.

If you're installing a new system, the point release will at least
tell you whether it's worth downloading a new d-i iso or if you've
got the latest there is. Not much more.

If you need Debian 7, it's easy enough to install it. If you think you
need Debian 7.3, you're probably going to have trouble working out just
what versions of all the packages were available on December 14th, 2013.

Cheers,
David.

Re: debian version ID

[Ben Finney]

Felix Miata  writes:

> Given the many possible options[1] for that file's content, one would
> think there would be a way to get the extra detail in, maybe
> VERSION_ID=8 and VERSION="8.5 (Jessie)", or move "Jessie" to
> VERSION_CODENAME and put 8.5 as VERSION.

I don't understand what you're asking, then.

Are you claiming the current content of the file violates that standard?
If so, a bug report would be appropriate.

If not, are you asking about counter-factual “why wasn't it done some
other way”?

An obvious answer is “because choosing some particular single way
necessarily means the other ways are not chosen”. But you seem to be
wanting some non-obvious answer different from that.

-- 
 \ “We demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!” |
  `\—Vroomfondel, _The Hitch-Hiker's Guide To The Galaxy_, Douglas |
_o__)Adams |
Ben Finney

Re: debian version ID

[Felix Miata]

Ben Finney composed on 2016-08-01 03:20 (UTC-0400):


Felix Miata wrote:



Will someone please explain (or point to, since it's not in release
notes), why:



1: /etc/os-release (in Jessie at least) does not include the point
release version as represented by /etc/debian_version



The proximate explanation is: Because the API for that file is
different. It describes the stable release for its whole lifetime, not
the updates made since that version of Debian was released.


Given the many possible options[1] for that file's content, one would think 
there would be a way to get the extra detail in, maybe VERSION_ID=8 and 
VERSION="8.5 (Jessie)", or move "Jessie" to VERSION_CODENAME and put 8.5 as 
VERSION.



A related question might be: Where is the canonical location of the
version string that *includes* the update (e.g. “8.5”)? I don't know
whether such a thing exists.



2: 8.5 (as installed here on host gx62b) is not using the (LTS) 4.4
kernel



I expect the reason is: Because at the time Jessie was frozen, Linux 4.4
was not released. An update to Jessie is made only to fix bugs, not to
gain new releases of packages.


The question was a huge bungle. I was off by a year, thinking that Jessie 
somehow had managed to get all the way from 8.0 to 8.5 since the more recent 
January's LTS kernel 4.4. :-p



So the question instead is: Why would the general policy of “don't
upgrade a package to a new version” for Debian stable releases, have an
exception for this package?


[1] https://www.freedesktop.org/software/systemd/man/os-release.html
--
"The wise are known for their understanding, and pleasant
words are persuasive." Proverbs 16:21 (New Living Translation)

 Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 ** a11y rocks!

Felix Miata  ***  http://fm.no-ip.com/

Re: debian version ID

[Andrew M.A. Cater]

On Mon, Aug 01, 2016 at 02:56:54AM -0400, Felix Miata wrote:
> Will someone please explain (or point to, since it's not in release notes), 
> why:
> 
> 1: /etc/os-release (in Jessie at least) does not include the point release
> version as represented by /etc/debian_version
> 

/etc/os-release just contains major version - the absolute need for minor 
version is small.
(point releases do not now introduce major changes - the numbering policy 
changed around Debian 7 IIRC.)
Point releases are, after all, only a convenient way of gathering up security 
and minor fixes - if you do
an apt-get update or similar regularly then you move up through the point 
releases anyway, if you install from
say, 8.0 netboot media, then the installation process itself updates you. If 
you were to install from 8.0 media
alone then the first apt-get update / apt-get full-upgrade once connected to 
the network would bring you to 8.5


> 2: 8.5 (as installed here on host gx62b) is not using the (LTS) 4.4 kernel

At the time when Jessie was released, the 4.4 kernel wasn't quite stable, I 
think. If you use Jessie backports
you get 4.6 otherwise you get 3.16. That's the trade off between 
unconditionally stable with lots of testing
and security support and the pace of software development outside.

All best,

AndyC
> -- 
> Felix Miata  ***  http://fm.no-ip.com/

Re: debian version ID

[Ben Finney]

Felix Miata  writes:

> Will someone please explain (or point to, since it's not in release
> notes), why:
>
> 1: /etc/os-release (in Jessie at least) does not include the point
> release version as represented by /etc/debian_version

The proximate explanation is: Because the API for that file is
different. It describes the stable release for its whole lifetime, not
the updates made since that version of Debian was released.

A related question might be: Where is the canonical location of the
version string that *includes* the update (e.g. “8.5”)? I don't know
whether such a thing exists.

> 2: 8.5 (as installed here on host gx62b) is not using the (LTS) 4.4
> kernel

I expect the reason is: Because at the time Jessie was frozen, Linux 4.4
was not released. An update to Jessie is made only to fix bugs, not to
gain new releases of packages.

So the question instead is: Why would the general policy of “don't
upgrade a package to a new version” for Debian stable releases, have an
exception for this package?

-- 
 \“Choose mnemonic identifiers. If you can't remember what |
  `\mnemonic means, you've got a problem.” —Larry Wall |
_o__)  |
Ben Finney

Re: Debian Version for download 2.4

[Pascal Hambourg]

Hello,

culser1242 a écrit :
> 
> do you know a link where I can down load an older Debian Version Image?


A repository is also available at 

> Linux DEB1 2.4.27-2-386 #1 Wed Aug 17 09:33:35 UTC 2005 i686 GNU/Linux

IIRC this kernel version was in Debian 3.1 aka "Sarge".


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4cf93c3b.8030...@plouf.fr.eu.org

Re: Debian version?

[Adam Porter]

Don wrote:

> On Wednesday 04 January 2006 12:20 am, Adam Porter wrote:
> When I read your email I realized I may not have been quite as clear
> as
> I should have been.  I am curious as to what version of Debian I have
> installed now.
> 
> However here is the answer to your questions in case that helps.  The CD's
> listed are commented out and not used.
> 
>> /etc/apt/preferences
> arthur:/home/casper# cat /etc/apt/sources.list
> 
> ...
> 
> deb http://security.debian.org/ stable/updates main
> deb http://http.us.debian.org/debian stable main contrib non-free
> 
> arthur:/home/casper# cat /etc/apt/preferences
> cat: /etc/apt/preferences: No such file or directory

Ok, from that you can see that apt is using stable, which is currently
Sarge.  Assuming you've run a dist-upgrade sometime since Sarge was
released, you're running Sarge.  If you haven't dist-upgraded since then,
you could be running Woody.

I'm not sure about /etc/debian_version.  I can't recall how, but I know I
remember setting that manually to "testing/unstable" at some point when
asked by debconf, I think.  So it may not be a reliable indicator of what
you have installed.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian version?

[Andrew Sackville-West]

On Tue, 3 Jan 2006 20:10:37 +
Don <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> On Wednesday 04 January 2006 12:20 am, Adam Porter wrote:
> When I read your email I realized I may not have been quite as clear as 
> I should have been.  I am curious as to what version of Debian I have 
> installed now.
> 
> However here is the answer to your questions in case that helps.  The CD's 
> listed are commented out and not used.
> 
> > /etc/apt/preferences
> arthur:/home/casper# cat /etc/apt/sources.list
> 
> #deb cdrom:[Debian GNU/Linux 3.0 r2 _Woody_ - Official i386 Binary-7 
> (20031201)]/ unstable contrib main non-US/contrib non-US/main
> #deb cdrom:[Debian GNU/Linux 3.0 r2 _Woody_ - Official i386 Binary-6 
> (20031201)]/ unstable contrib main non-US/contrib non-US/main
> #deb cdrom:[Debian GNU/Linux 3.0 r2 _Woody_ - Official i386 Binary-5 
> (20031201)]/ unstable contrib main non-US/contrib non-US/main
> #deb cdrom:[Debian GNU/Linux 3.0 r2 _Woody_ - Official i386 Binary-4 
> (20031201)]/ unstable contrib main non-US/contrib non-US/main
> #deb cdrom:[Debian GNU/Linux 3.0 r2 _Woody_ - Official i386 Binary-3 
> (20031201)]/ unstable contrib main non-US/contrib non-US/main
> #deb cdrom:[Debian GNU/Linux 3.0 r2 _Woody_ - Official i386 Binary-2 
> (20031201)]/ unstable contrib main non-US/contrib non-US/main
> #deb cdrom:[Debian GNU/Linux 3.0 r2 _Woody_ - Official i386 Binary-1 
> (20031201)]/ unstable contrib main non-US/contrib non-US/main
> 
> deb http://security.debian.org/ stable/updates main
> deb http://http.us.debian.org/debian stable main contrib non-free

with only stable in your sources.list adn assuming you've not installed a bunch 
of non-debian stuff, then you are running "stable" though you may not have 
dist-upgraded to "Sarge" (if that makes sense). 

A
> 
> arthur:/home/casper# cat /etc/apt/preferences
> cat: /etc/apt/preferences: No such file or directory
> 
> -- 
> W4GFQ - Powered by Linux - 
> 
> 
> -- 
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian version?

[Jerome BENOIT]

cat /etc/debian_version

Adam Porter wrote:

Don wrote:



Is there a quick and easy means of determining what "version" I have
installed?



What's in /etc/apt/sources.list?  Anything in /etc/apt/preferences?




--
Jerome BENOIT
jgmbenoit_at_mailsnare_dot_net


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian version?

[Don]

On Wednesday 04 January 2006 12:20 am, Adam Porter wrote:
When I read your email I realized I may not have been quite as clear as 
I should have been.  I am curious as to what version of Debian I have 
installed now.

However here is the answer to your questions in case that helps.  The CD's 
listed are commented out and not used.

> /etc/apt/preferences
arthur:/home/casper# cat /etc/apt/sources.list

#deb cdrom:[Debian GNU/Linux 3.0 r2 _Woody_ - Official i386 Binary-7 
(20031201)]/ unstable contrib main non-US/contrib non-US/main
#deb cdrom:[Debian GNU/Linux 3.0 r2 _Woody_ - Official i386 Binary-6 
(20031201)]/ unstable contrib main non-US/contrib non-US/main
#deb cdrom:[Debian GNU/Linux 3.0 r2 _Woody_ - Official i386 Binary-5 
(20031201)]/ unstable contrib main non-US/contrib non-US/main
#deb cdrom:[Debian GNU/Linux 3.0 r2 _Woody_ - Official i386 Binary-4 
(20031201)]/ unstable contrib main non-US/contrib non-US/main
#deb cdrom:[Debian GNU/Linux 3.0 r2 _Woody_ - Official i386 Binary-3 
(20031201)]/ unstable contrib main non-US/contrib non-US/main
#deb cdrom:[Debian GNU/Linux 3.0 r2 _Woody_ - Official i386 Binary-2 
(20031201)]/ unstable contrib main non-US/contrib non-US/main
#deb cdrom:[Debian GNU/Linux 3.0 r2 _Woody_ - Official i386 Binary-1 
(20031201)]/ unstable contrib main non-US/contrib non-US/main

deb http://security.debian.org/ stable/updates main
deb http://http.us.debian.org/debian stable main contrib non-free

arthur:/home/casper# cat /etc/apt/preferences
cat: /etc/apt/preferences: No such file or directory

-- 
W4GFQ - Powered by Linux - 


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian version?

[Adam Porter]

Don wrote:

> Is there a quick and easy means of determining what "version" I have
> installed?

What's in /etc/apt/sources.list?  Anything in /etc/apt/preferences?


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian version and apt.conf (was Re: i think I switched to Etch without knowing it)

[Marty]

Chris Bannister wrote:

On Fri, Jun 10, 2005 at 02:39:02PM -0400, Marty wrote:

Clive Menzies wrote:
>On (10/06/05 13:13), Marty wrote:

>>This is all very mysterious to me, all these people lacking an apt.conf 
>>file.
>>I wonder how apt can function without it?  In particular, how do you 
>>specify

>>your Debian version?!
>>
>I think it's mainly for situations where you have multiple versions in
>your sources.list and need to specify which is preferred.  If you only
>have one  version in the list thene it is superfluous.

I still don't understand where apt gets the Debian version.  If it infers
it from the repository name then pointing to the wrong repository would
mean disaster, but I've never seen that.  My guess would be the
/etc/debian_version file, but it mildly freaks me out that I never knew
it before now.


/etc/debian_version is in base-files?


Yes:

[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ dlocate debian_version
base-files: /etc/debian_version

 If upgrading to sarge with 'sarge
> apt', would it not freak out with woody base-files?

Summarizing this sub-thread from its beginning, the consensus up to
this point, to my surprise, is that "Debian versions" (i.e. OS version
as opposed to package versions) do not really exist, at least as
far as apt or other installation tools are concerned.


ls -al /var/lib/apt/lists/



Yes, that.  There are a number of other qeustions and implications,
but I'm just glad it all works as advertised.  :-)


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian version and apt.conf (was Re: i think I switched to Etch without knowing it)

[Chris Bannister]

On Fri, Jun 10, 2005 at 02:39:02PM -0400, Marty wrote:
> Clive Menzies wrote:
> >On (10/06/05 13:13), Marty wrote:
> 
> >>This is all very mysterious to me, all these people lacking an apt.conf 
> >>file.
> >>I wonder how apt can function without it?  In particular, how do you 
> >>specify
> >>your Debian version?!
> >>
> >I think it's mainly for situations where you have multiple versions in
> >your sources.list and need to specify which is preferred.  If you only
> >have one  version in the list thene it is superfluous.
> 
> I still don't understand where apt gets the Debian version.  If it infers
> it from the repository name then pointing to the wrong repository would
> mean disaster, but I've never seen that.  My guess would be the
> /etc/debian_version file, but it mildly freaks me out that I never knew
> it before now.

/etc/debian_version is in base-files? If upgrading to sarge with 'sarge
apt', would it not freak out with woody base-files?


ls -al /var/lib/apt/lists/

-- 
Chris.
==


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian version and apt.conf

[Curt Howland]

Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>More than I even want to think about, actually.  Like I said before, 
>what I've been doing for years always seems to work.  :-)

The only thing I've ever changed is which release named 
subdirectory /etc/apt/sources.list points to, over several Debian 
release cycles on more than one machine. It has worked just fine.

I didn't even know there was a file "apt.conf" until this subject came 
up.

Curt-

-- 
September 11th, 2001
The proudest day for gun control and central 
planning advocates in American history


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian version and apt.conf

[Marty]

David Jardine wrote:

On Fri, Jun 10, 2005 at 06:31:29PM -0400, Marty wrote:

David Jardine wrote:
>And I still don't understand where you got your apt.conf file 
>from - it was you wasn't it, Marty (teacher's pet :{ ).

>

If I did it was some years ago and I don't recall.  But why did you
call me a "teacher's pet???"


Because you got an apt.conf file and we didn't .



LOL  it's kind of mind boggling that I would not even remember the
changes I've made to my own systems.  Maybe I'm a split personality
and there are two of me.  (hmmm that would explain a lot.)


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian version and apt.conf

[Chris Martin]

On 6/10/05, David Jardine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 10, 2005 at 06:31:29PM -0400, Marty wrote:
> > David Jardine wrote:
> > >And I still don't understand where you got your apt.conf file
> > >from - it was you wasn't it, Marty (teacher's pet :{ ).
> > >
> >
> > If I did it was some years ago and I don't recall.  But why did you
> > call me a "teacher's pet???"
> 
> Because you got an apt.conf file and we didn't .
> 
> --
> David Jardine
> 
> "Running Debian GNU/Linux and
> loving every minute of it."  -L. von Sacher-M.(1835-1895)
> 
> 

LMAO!
 
-- 
Chris Martin
Web Developer
Open Source & Web Standards Advocate
http://www.chriscodes.com/

Re: Debian version and apt.conf

[David Jardine]

On Fri, Jun 10, 2005 at 06:31:29PM -0400, Marty wrote:
> David Jardine wrote:
> >And I still don't understand where you got your apt.conf file 
> >from - it was you wasn't it, Marty (teacher's pet :{ ).
> >
> 
> If I did it was some years ago and I don't recall.  But why did you
> call me a "teacher's pet???"

Because you got an apt.conf file and we didn't .

-- 
David Jardine

"Running Debian GNU/Linux and
loving every minute of it."  -L. von Sacher-M.(1835-1895)


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian version and apt.conf

[Marty]

David Jardine wrote:

On Fri, Jun 10, 2005 at 05:39:54PM -0400, Marty wrote:

John Hasler wrote:
>Marty writes:
>>I still don't understand where apt gets the Debian version.
>
>Why do you think it cares?

I thought apt "knew" about debian version.  If the "version" is only a
classification for grouping .deb files in the archives/repositories, then
it raises many more questions/implications in my mind than it answers.

More than I even want to think about, actually.  Like I said before, what
I've been doing for years always seems to work.  :-)


And I still don't understand where you got your apt.conf file 
from - it was you wasn't it, Marty (teacher's pet :{ ).




If I did it was some years ago and I don't recall.  But why did you
call me a "teacher's pet???"


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian version and apt.conf

[David Jardine]

On Fri, Jun 10, 2005 at 05:39:54PM -0400, Marty wrote:
> John Hasler wrote:
> >Marty writes:
> >>I still don't understand where apt gets the Debian version.
> >
> >Why do you think it cares?
> 
> I thought apt "knew" about debian version.  If the "version" is only a
> classification for grouping .deb files in the archives/repositories, then
> it raises many more questions/implications in my mind than it answers.
> 
> More than I even want to think about, actually.  Like I said before, what
> I've been doing for years always seems to work.  :-)

And I still don't understand where you got your apt.conf file 
from - it was you wasn't it, Marty (teacher's pet :{ ).

-- 
David Jardine

"Running Debian GNU/Linux and
loving every minute of it."  -L. von Sacher-M.(1835-1895)


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian version and apt.conf

[Marty]

John Hasler wrote:

Marty writes:

I still don't understand where apt gets the Debian version.


Why do you think it cares?


I thought apt "knew" about debian version.  If the "version" is only a
classification for grouping .deb files in the archives/repositories, then
it raises many more questions/implications in my mind than it answers.

More than I even want to think about, actually.  Like I said before, what
I've been doing for years always seems to work.  :-)


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian version and apt.conf

[John Hasler]

Marty writes:
> I still don't understand where apt gets the Debian version.

Why do you think it cares?
-- 
John Hasler


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian version

[Colin Watson]

On Thu, Nov 13, 2003 at 07:30:49AM +0800, csj wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 19:43:50 +,
> Jonathan Dowland wrote:
> > unstable is always 'sid'. slink/potato/woody started life as
> > testing (afaik) before migrating to stable.
> 
> I don't think there was "testing" before slink was released.  IRC
> I started using Debian around the time potato was released and I
> managed to witness the birth ot testing.

Yes, testing was introduced after package pools were implemented, which
was in late 2000 after the release of potato.

  http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce-0012/msg4.html
  http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce-0012/msg00011.html

The testing distribution started out as a copy of 2.2r2. It then took a
fair while to turn into something reasonable, but that's history now ...

Cheers,

-- 
Colin Watson  [EMAIL PROTECTED]


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian version

[csj]

On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 19:43:50 +,
Jonathan Dowland wrote:

[...]

> unstable is always 'sid'. slink/potato/woody started life as
> testing (afaik) before migrating to stable.

I don't think there was "testing" before slink was released.  IRC
I started using Debian around the time potato was released and I
managed to witness the birth ot testing.

[...]


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian version

[Lukas Ruf]

> Drew <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2003-11-12 20:40]:
>
> Thanks,
>
> This is all thats in my sources.list (comments rm-ed) deb
> http://http.us.debian.org/debian stable main contrib non-free deb
> http://non-us.debian.org/debian-non-US stable/non-US main contrib
> non-free deb http://security.debian.org stable/updates main contrib
> non-free
>
> Thanks for the idea about checking libc.  Do I check that against
> the ftp site? or someother way because, I just ftp-ed in and there
> are no dpkgs in debian/dists/stable/main/binary-i386.
>
> What am I missing?  How can there be NO dpkg's in stable?

please do not top-post!

following the contents of your sources.list, I assume you are with
stable.

You can get the version of your libc6 by
dpkg -l libc6

For me, unstable, it reports:
||/ Name   VersionDescription
+++-==-==-
ii  libc6  2.3.2.ds1-10   GNU C Library: Shared libraries and Timezone

In case you would want to change your libc6, do not try to switch that
by hand since too many packages depend on a particular version, JICO.

wbr,
Lukas
-- 
Lukas Ruf   | Wanna know anything about raw |
 | IP?     |


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian version

[Greg Madden]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

On Wednesday 12 November 2003 10:24 am, Drew wrote:
> Thanks,
>
> This is all thats in my sources.list (comments rm-ed)
> deb http://http.us.debian.org/debian stable main
> contrib non-free
> deb http://non-us.debian.org/debian-non-US
> stable/non-US main contrib non-free
> deb http://security.debian.org stable/updates main
> contrib non-free
>
> Thanks for the idea about checking libc.  Do I check
> that against the ftp site? or someother way because, I
> just ftp-ed in and there are no dpkgs in
> debian/dists/stable/main/binary-i386.
>
> What am I missing?  How can there be NO dpkg's in
> stable?
>
>
> Drew

The packages are in  ~/pool. You can search for packages at: 
http://www.debian.org/distrib/packages
- -- 
Greg Madden
Debian GNU/Linux
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQE/splQk7rtxKWZzGsRAnDsAJwKzTvAjprmWZMjQ/TBtEai/FLnjQCguKZp
wCTh/BsewJBgjZgQN6HaS/w=
=ikzb
-END PGP SIGNATURE-


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian version

[Jonathan Dowland]

On Wed, Nov 12, 2003 at 08:24:12AM -0800, Drew wrote:
> Greetings,
> 
> FWIW I did search the archives first but...
> 
> I am trying to figure out what version of debian I am
> running.  /etc/issue* and /etc/debian_version all
> state unstable/testing, but I don't know when this box
> was installed.  This box could be potato, from when
> potato was unstable, but how to tell? 

unstable is always 'sid'. slink/potato/woody started life as testing
(afaik) before migrating to stable.

> I am attempting to determine what release this box is
> slink, potato, woody, sarge? 

check sources.list
stable net address   == woody
testing net address  == sarge
unstable net address == sid

If your sources.list has cdrom  or local entries, you may have to dig
the CDs out. Also if you haven't done an apt-get update/upgrade in ages,
you may be lagging behind a distro (e.g. you could have a very
out-of-date potato box, despite stable being woody now).

-- 
Jon Dowland
http://jon.dowland.name/


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian version

[Drew]

Thanks,

This is all thats in my sources.list (comments rm-ed)
deb http://http.us.debian.org/debian stable main
contrib non-free
deb http://non-us.debian.org/debian-non-US
stable/non-US main contrib non-free
deb http://security.debian.org stable/updates main
contrib non-free

Thanks for the idea about checking libc.  Do I check
that against the ftp site? or someother way because, I
just ftp-ed in and there are no dpkgs in
debian/dists/stable/main/binary-i386.  

What am I missing?  How can there be NO dpkg's in
stable?
 

Drew


--- Lukas Ruf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Drew <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2003-11-12
> 17:28]:
> >
> > Greetings,
> >
> > FWIW I did search the archives first but...
> >
> > I am trying to figure out what version of debian I
> am
> > running.  /etc/issue* and /etc/debian_version all
> > state unstable/testing, but I don't know when this
> box
> > was installed.  This box could be potato, from
> when
> > potato was unstable, but how to tell?
> >
> > I am attempting to determine what release this box
> is
> > slink, potato, woody, sarge?
> >
> > Any help would be appreciated.
> >
> 
> what does
> /etc/apt/sources.list
> say?  Is there anything like
> stable
> unstable
> sid
> testing
> ...
> in the deb-statements?  This could give a hint...
> 
> wbr,
> Lukas
> -- 
> Lukas Ruf   | Wanna know anything about raw
> |
>  | IP?    
> |
> 
> 
> -- 
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 



__
Do you Yahoo!?
Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard
http://antispam.yahoo.com/whatsnewfree


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian version

[David Z Maze]

Drew <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> I am trying to figure out what version of debian I am
> running.  /etc/issue* and /etc/debian_version all
> state unstable/testing, but I don't know when this box
> was installed.  This box could be potato, from when
> potato was unstable, but how to tell? 
>
> I am attempting to determine what release this box is
> slink, potato, woody, sarge? 

One thing you might try doing is looking at the version of the libc6
package, which has pretty reliably changed between releases, and
compare it to the version in the various releases.  I don't entirely
remember when testing appeared but I'm pretty sure that if your
/etc/debian_version mentions testing then you're post-slink.  :-)

-- 
David Maze [EMAIL PROTECTED]  http://people.debian.org/~dmaze/
"Theoretical politics is interesting.  Politicking should be illegal."
-- Abra Mitchell


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Debian version

[Lukas Ruf]

> Drew <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2003-11-12 17:28]:
>
> Greetings,
>
> FWIW I did search the archives first but...
>
> I am trying to figure out what version of debian I am
> running.  /etc/issue* and /etc/debian_version all
> state unstable/testing, but I don't know when this box
> was installed.  This box could be potato, from when
> potato was unstable, but how to tell?
>
> I am attempting to determine what release this box is
> slink, potato, woody, sarge?
>
> Any help would be appreciated.
>

what does
/etc/apt/sources.list
say?  Is there anything like
stable
unstable
sid
testing
...
in the deb-statements?  This could give a hint...

wbr,
Lukas
-- 
Lukas Ruf   | Wanna know anything about raw |
 | IP?     |


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: debian version

[Rus Foster]

On Fri, 8 Aug 2003, Shashank Bhide wrote:

> Hello all,
>  I was wondering what is the actual output of uname -a ?  Doesn't uname
> give the kernel version? How do I know whether I have Debian potato / woody
> installed on my system?
> Thanks,
> Shashank

You can try "cat /etc/issue". Version 3 is woody

Rgds

Rus
-- 
w: http://www.jvds.com  | Linux + FreeBSD VDS's from $15/mo
e: [EMAIL PROTECTED]| Totally Customizable Technology
t: 07919 373537 | General FreeBSD Forums:
msm: [EMAIL PROTECTED]   | http://forums.jvds.com/viewforum.php?f=7



-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: debian version

[Kent West]

Shashank Bhide wrote:

Hello all,
I was wondering what is the actual output of uname -a ?  Doesn't 
uname give the kernel version? How do I know whether I have Debian 
potato / woody installed on my system?
Thanks,
Shashank



cat /etc/debian_version

--
Kent West ([EMAIL PROTECTED])


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: debian version names

[Rogerio Acquadro]

Hi Alex,

The names of the versions of Debian are from the Toy Story film, produced 
by Disney and Pixar studios. They are the names of the caracteres of the 
film. Potato is the potato head, Woody is the cowboy and so on.
You can find more info about the codename on debian's website: 
http://www.debian.org 
Then go on About or something.

Rogerio

On Thu, 20 Jun 2002, Alexander Carôt wrote:

> Hi to all,
> 
> can anyone tell me what the debian version names are ? F.e. what is potato,
> what is woody or is there a link where it is explained ?
> 
> Thanks
> 
> -- A l e x 
> 
> 
> 

-- 
 :::  .''`.  :::  Rogerio Acquadro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
 ::: : :'  : :::  ICQ UIN: 6543753
 ::: `. `'`  :::  Administrador de rede - CCS - UNICAMP
 :::   `-:::  http://www.ccs.unicamp.br/~racquad
   !! FREE SOFTWARE MEANS FREE WORLD !!



-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: debian version names

[Paul Johnson]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

On Thu, Jun 20, 2002 at 02:03:04AM -0700, Alexander Car?t wrote:

> can anyone tell me what the debian version names are ? F.e. what is potato,
> what is woody or is there a link where it is explained ?

Toy Story character names.  Previous ones since I've used Debian were bo
and hamm, for example.

- -- 
Baloo


-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQE9EaTqNtWkM9Ny9xURAiFPAJsEQo+d5zZoavDO18BADbWB5UBLYwCeNrQr
MiAOw5rLfJS688C4whS+4oQ=
=yNu9
-END PGP SIGNATURE-


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: debian version names

[Colin Watson]

On Thu, Jun 20, 2002 at 02:03:04AM -0700, Alexander Car?t wrote:
> Hi to all,
> 
> can anyone tell me what the debian version names are ? F.e. what is potato,
> what is woody or is there a link where it is explained ?

Look for the Debian Project History at .

-- 
Colin Watson  [EMAIL PROTECTED]


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: debian version names

[martin f krafft]

also sprach Alexander Carôt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002.06.20.1103 +0200]:
> can anyone tell me what the debian version names are ? F.e. what is potato,
> what is woody or is there a link where it is explained ?

http://www.debian.org/releases/
http://www.debian.org/doc/FAQ/ch-ftparchives.html#s-sourceforcodenames

-- 
martin;  (greetings from the heart of the sun.)
  \ echo mailto: !#^."<*>"|tr "<*> mailto:"; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  
si l'on sait exactement ca que l'on va faire,
a quoi bon le faire?
  -- pablo picasso


pgpXL98QoDbLm.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: [DEBIAN] version of tar that does bzip2

[Armin Wegner]

On Fri, Jun 04, 1999 at 10:19:58AM -0500, Oleg Krivosheev wrote:
>is there a version of tar somewhere that will recognize bzip2
>compression?  I don't like untarring in two passes :-)

Use 'tar xIf aaa.tar.bz2' in slink. The 'I' is for bzip2.

Re: [DEBIAN] version of tar that does bzip2

[Oleg Krivosheev]

   Howdy,

hi there

   is there a version of tar somewhere that will recognize bzip2
   compression?  I don't like untarring in two passes :-)

huh !?!

pipes are your friend

bunzip2 -dc aaa.tar.bz2 | tar xvvf -


   Nico

OK

Re: [DEBIAN] version of tar that does bzip2

[Alec Smith]

give tar -xvvfI a try. Its the I which does the unBzip2ing on atleast
slink.




On Fri, 4 Jun 1999, Nico De Ranter wrote:

> 
> Howdy,
> 
> is there a version of tar somewhere that will recognize bzip2
> compression?  I don't like untarring in two passes :-)
> 
> Nico
> 
> -- 
> 
> How do you tell when you run out of invisible ink?
> 
> Nico De Ranter
> Sony Service Center (SUPC-E/DNSE-B)
> Sint Stevens Woluwestraat 55 (Rue de Woluwe-Saint-Etienne)
> 1130 Brussel (Bruxelles), Belgium, Europe, Earth
> Telephone: +32 2 724 86 41 Telefax: +32 2 726 26 86
> e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 
> 
> -- 
> Unsubscribe?  mail -s unsubscribe [EMAIL PROTECTED] < /dev/null
> 
> 

Re: [DEBIAN] version of tar that does bzip2

[Peter Makholm]

Nico De Ranter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> is there a version of tar somewhere that will recognize bzip2
> compression?  I don't like untarring in two passes :-)

The slink version of tar does this.

>From the manual:

 NAME
  tar - The GNU version of the tar archiving utility

[...]

  -I   filter archive through bzip2, use to decompress .bz2 files

[...]



-- 
Jeg er på nettet 6. juni, hvad med dig?

Re: [DEBIAN] version of tar that does bzip2

[Stephan Engelke]

Hi Nico,

On Fri, Jun 04, 1999 at 10:33:28AM +0200, Nico De Ranter wrote:

> is there a version of tar somewhere that will recognize bzip2
> compression?  I don't like untarring in two passes :-)

bzip2 -dc .tar.bz2 | tar -xvf -

works with any tar; bzip2 -d uncompresses and -c sends output to stdout
(the pipe), tar -f -  reads stdin (the pipe) as input.
This does not leave and uncompressed file around, the original
compresseed tar-archive is left untouched.

So long -- Stephan
-- 
Stephan Engelke[EMAIL PROTECTED]
*** Spare in der Schweiz, dann hast Du in der Not. ***

Re: debian version conventions

[Jens Ritter]

"Fethi A. Okyar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> Hello all,
> 
> want to bring the insane naming convention into argument here
> for one second. 
> 
> This remains to be a mystery for me, I don't know hw I ended up
> confusing all the names, slink potato, hamm, beef, etc.. Now I
> go down to the source (i.e. ftp.debian.org) and try to figure out
> which kernel version is used in which name by looking at base 
> packages. 

Have a look at 
ftp://archive.debian.org/debian-archive/dists/
for a Version number <-> code name mapping. 

HTH,

Jens
---
[EMAIL PROTECTED]   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Key ID: 2048/E451C639 Jens Ritter
Key fingerprint: 5F 3D 43 1E 24 1E CC 48  1E 05 93 3A A7 10 73 37 

Re: debian version conventions

[shaleh]

> 
> This remains to be a mystery for me, I don't know hw I ended up
> confusing all the names, slink potato, hamm, beef, etc.. Now I
> go down to the source (i.e. ftp.debian.org) and try to figure out
> which kernel version is used in which name by looking at base 
> packages. 
> 
> Can somebody clear this out by pointing the stable, unstable and
> old kernel versions, sorry for valuable cputimes I am consuming,
> Is there any plan on keeping this naming convention??
> 

hamm is Debian version 2.0 and ships kernel 2.0.3? or 26 I forget
slink is Debian version 2.1 and ships kernel 2.0.36
  (it is current stable Debian)
potato is Debian version 2.2 and will ship kernel 2.2.? when the time comes
  (and is the current Debian unstable branch)

there is always a kernel-image package it will tell you which versions of the
kernel we ship.

The Debian version has nothing to do with the kernel version.

And is hamm, slink any worse the hedwig or apollo?

Re: debian version conventions

[Jean-Yves Barbier]

"Fethi A. Okyar" wrote:
> 
> Hello all,
> 
> want to bring the insane naming convention into argument here
> for one second.
> 
> This remains to be a mystery for me, I don't know hw I ended up
> confusing all the names, slink potato, hamm, beef, etc.. Now I
> go down to the source (i.e. ftp.debian.org) and try to figure out
> which kernel version is used in which name by looking at base
> packages.
> 
> Can somebody clear this out by pointing the stable, unstable and
> old kernel versions, sorry for valuable cputimes I am consuming,
> Is there any plan on keeping this naming convention??
> 

That's very simple Fethi: if the x from 2.x.n is ODD, then the kernel is
unstable, if its even, then its stable!
-- 
Jean-Yves Barbier   <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Les choses ne sont pas toujours ce que l'on voudrait qu'elles soient qu'elles
fussent..." P. DAC
Boycott Intel, watch: http://www.bigbrotherinside.com

Re: debian version 1.3.1 ?

[Dale Scheetz]

On Wed, 8 Oct 1997, Bob wrote:

> I recently add X to my debian box. My debian version still shows 1.3
> 
> Shouldn't this now read 1.3.1??
> 
No. The most recent releases have been 1.1, 1.2, and 1.3 while the
upcomming release is to be 2.0 (which may explain the fairly long
developement cycle for this release).

The additional ".N" represents an incremental "point release", which
constitutes changes to a small number of packages which either fix
security issues, or major flaws in the given packages. 

These "point releases" scared off some vendors because their product was
guaranteed to be stale by the time it made it onto retail shelves. This
situation (whether real or only perception) has kept Debian from appearing
in retail outlets, like computer stores and book stores.

To satisfy these concerns (because they impact "availability" of product
to our end users) it was decided to move to a "revision number" as the
method for indicating changes to the release. As usual our timing was
poor, in that the decission was implimented after the release of 1.3.1,
and on top of that, it was decided to "tack" the revision number onto the
current point release notation rather than revert to having the next
revision be 1.3-r2 (we could not decide between r1 and r2 because of the
confusion they might entail and settled on 1.3.1-r1 as the next revision
after 1.3.1, which seems to have created some confusion as well. Go
figure ;-)

So, the current version on the ftp site is 1.3.1-r4 which, when converted
to the old notation would be 1.3.5 and each of the previous rN's denote
previous minor modifications to the 1.3 release. 

With the release of 2.0 (early next year, with any luck at all) the
"revision number" system will be less confusing as 2.0 will become 2.0-r1
and so on.

In addition, the 1.3 release was the first to have an "formal" attempt
made at testing. We can thank the Testing Team and all their good work for
the improved stability of 1.3 over 1.2. As a side effect of this
additional testing proceedure, (which still goes on before each
revision) the length of time between changes to the release has increased
somewhat. This has caused some confusion over whether anyone is still
working on 1.3 or not. I can assure you that, while the majority of effort
is going into 2.0, there is still work being done on 1.3. It has seemed
strange that some folks have seen this as "abandonment" rather than
"closure"...

I hope my long-winded explanation will help eliminate some of your (and
other folks as well) confusion over this transition in labeling systems.

Luck,

Dwarf
-- 
_-_-_-_-_-_-  _-_-_-_-_-_-_-

aka   Dale Scheetz   Phone:   1 (904) 656-9769
  Flexible Software  11000 McCrackin Road
  e-mail:  [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tallahassee, FL  32308

_-_-_-_-_-_- If you don't see what you want, just ask _-_-_-_-_-_-_-


--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] . 
Trouble?  e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .

Re: debian version 1.3.1 ?

[Marcus Brinkmann]

On Wed, Oct 08, 1997 at 10:06:25PM -0400, Bob wrote:
> I recently add X to my debian box. My debian version still shows 1.3
> 
> Shouldn't this now read 1.3.1??
> 
> Bob

The problem is: what makes your system 1.3.1? If you have one old package
installed (or one new from hamm), or a mixture up to 0.93, what version
number would you like?

Marcus

-- 
"Rhubarb is no Egyptian god."
Marcus Brinkmann
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://homepage.ruhr-uni-bochum.de/Marcus.Brinkmann/


--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] . 
Trouble?  e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .

Re: debian version 1.3.1 ?

[Dave Cinege]

On Wed, 8 Oct 1997 22:06:25 -0400 (EDT), Bob wrote:

>I recently add X to my debian box. My debian version still shows 1.3
>
>Shouldn't this now read 1.3.1??

It should actualy read somewhere around 1.3.5, but some people in the project 
have found it to be more important to have a static rev number for commercial 
reasons, instead of letting people know what is actually installed on their 
systems.
-
http://www.psychosis.com/emc/   Elite MicroComputers   908-541-4214
http://www.psychosis.com/linux-router/  Linux Router Project


--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] . 
Trouble?  e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .

Re: debian version 1.3.1 ?

[Branden Robinson]

On Wed, 8 Oct 1997, Bob wrote:

No, I don't think so, for the same reason issue and issue.net aren't
updated:

[0] 654 apocalypse ~ > dpkg -S issue
manpages: /usr/man/man5/issue.5.gz
base-files: /etc/issue.net
netstd: /usr/man/man5/issue.net.5.gz
base-files: /etc/issue
[0] 655 apocalypse ~ > dpkg -S debian_version
base-files: /etc/debian_version
[0] 656 apocalypse ~ > 

> Thanks for the info. I never really thought in terms of security.
> Should the file /etc/debian_version  show 1.3.1.  Mine shows 1.3.
> I know this is a very minor point, I'm just curious.
> 
> On Wed, 8 Oct 1997, Branden Robinson wrote:
> 
> > On Wed, 8 Oct 1997, Bob wrote:
> > 
> > > I recently add X to my debian box. My debian version still shows 1.3
> > > 
> > > Shouldn't this now read 1.3.1??
> > > 
> > > Bob
> > 
> > I think it's a Debian policy not to "publicize" the patch level of the
> > version.  (My /etc/issue, and /etc/issue.net files all report 1.3 as
> > well, and reported simply 1.1 and 1.2 when I ran those -- 0.93R6 didn't
> > have any patches).
> > 
> > This is possibly because one of the few events that causes a patch to the
> > stable version is the discovery and patching of security holes.  If someone
> > can easily determine from your machine what version you're running, he/she
> > may be able to make deductions about the security vulnerabilities of your
> > machine.
> > 
> > On the other hand, it may just be because /etc/issue and /etc/issue.net are
> > contained in the base-files and netstd packages respectively, and to keep
> > up with patches, it would be necessary to re-release those two packages
> > every time.  Come to think of it, that reason is more likely than the
> > security one (since real crackers would test your system for exploitability
> > regardless of what your issue files said).

--
G. Branden Robinson |  There's nothing an agnostic can't do
Purdue University   |  if he doesn't know whether he believes
[EMAIL PROTECTED]  |  in it or not.
http://www.ecn.purdue.edu/~branden/ |  -- Graham Chapman


--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] . 
Trouble?  e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .

Re: debian version 1.3.1 ?

[Bob]

Thanks for the info. I never really thought in terms of security.
Should the file /etc/debian_version  show 1.3.1.  Mine shows 1.3.
I know this is a very minor point, I'm just curious.

Bob


On Wed, 8 Oct 1997, Branden Robinson wrote:

> On Wed, 8 Oct 1997, Bob wrote:
> 
> > I recently add X to my debian box. My debian version still shows 1.3
> > 
> > Shouldn't this now read 1.3.1??
> > 
> > Bob
> 
> I think it's a Debian policy not to "publicize" the patch level of the
> version.  (My /etc/issue, and /etc/issue.net files all report 1.3 as
> well, and reported simply 1.1 and 1.2 when I ran those -- 0.93R6 didn't
> have any patches).
> 
> This is possibly because one of the few events that causes a patch to the
> stable version is the discovery and patching of security holes.  If someone
> can easily determine from your machine what version you're running, he/she
> may be able to make deductions about the security vulnerabilities of your
> machine.
> 
> On the other hand, it may just be because /etc/issue and /etc/issue.net are
> contained in the base-files and netstd packages respectively, and to keep
> up with patches, it would be necessary to re-release those two packages
> every time.  Come to think of it, that reason is more likely than the
> security one (since real crackers would test your system for exploitability
> regardless of what your issue files said).
> 
> --
> G. Branden Robinson |  A committee is a life form with six or
> Purdue University   |  more legs and no brain.
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]  |  -- Robert Heinlein
> http://www.ecn.purdue.edu/~branden/ |
> 
> 
> --
> TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] . 
> Trouble?  e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
> 
> 
> 


--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] . 
Trouble?  e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .

Re: debian version 1.3.1 ?

[Branden Robinson]

On Wed, 8 Oct 1997, Bob wrote:

> I recently add X to my debian box. My debian version still shows 1.3
> 
> Shouldn't this now read 1.3.1??
> 
> Bob

I think it's a Debian policy not to "publicize" the patch level of the
version.  (My /etc/issue, and /etc/issue.net files all report 1.3 as
well, and reported simply 1.1 and 1.2 when I ran those -- 0.93R6 didn't
have any patches).

This is possibly because one of the few events that causes a patch to the
stable version is the discovery and patching of security holes.  If someone
can easily determine from your machine what version you're running, he/she
may be able to make deductions about the security vulnerabilities of your
machine.

On the other hand, it may just be because /etc/issue and /etc/issue.net are
contained in the base-files and netstd packages respectively, and to keep
up with patches, it would be necessary to re-release those two packages
every time.  Come to think of it, that reason is more likely than the
security one (since real crackers would test your system for exploitability
regardless of what your issue files said).

--
G. Branden Robinson |  A committee is a life form with six or
Purdue University   |  more legs and no brain.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]  |  -- Robert Heinlein
http://www.ecn.purdue.edu/~branden/ |


--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] . 
Trouble?  e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .

Re: Debian Version Numbers Was: Is this the Debian Philosophy? (or.... $#@!@#$ bash 2.0!)

[Dave Cinege]

On Wed, 20 Aug 97 12:52 PDT, Bruce Perens wrote:

>> How about a longer explanation on the list? I'm _SURE_ that _MANY_
>> inquiring minds would like to know.
>
>
>So, we want to make it clear that our CD, even if it is a revision or two
>behind, is still _current_ product in that you can easily hit our FTP site
>and update it to the latest and greatest. We are separating the release
>number from the revision number to emphasize this fact.

Bruce, please don't do this. Thangs are already slacking in that bug fixes and 
updates have been 
made to 1.3.1 without and change in the minor number. Every version number 
should be frozen 
soild, even if it means we go all the way up to 1.3.199. 

This Microsoft style of reving, will kill the distribution. People are going to 
by a cd with a bug and 
forever be biased against a whole version of Debian. You're following the money 
and that is a bad 
thing. You should not be worried about getting Debian into the stores. You 
should be concerned 
about making the best product you can.

I don't consider this a minor issue. The name itself I don't care about, it's 
our current version 
control system that's at stake. I don't think you should be making this 
desision (or should I say the 
larger CD makers making it for you) on you're own because it affects the entire 
way Debian 
releases and updates will be handled in the future. 

I'd like to see Debian.org get out of the CD business entirly. I'd also like to 
see all monitary 
contributions stop. I don't want to deal with an orginazation...I want to deal 
with the people that 
make the product.  I should also mention I haven't heard a one of the CD-R 
makers ask for this.

If it says 1.3 or 1.3.1 or whatever,  at any time with any copy I should be 
able to do a crc check 
against what is in the master ftp server under that rev, and have it come up 
clean.
End of story. 
-
http://www.psychosis.com/emc/   Elite MicroComputers   908-541-4214
http://www.psychosis.com/linux-router/  Linux Router Project


--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] . 
Trouble?  e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .

Re: Debian Version Numbers Was: Is this the Debian Philosophy? (or.... $#@!@#$ bash 2.0!)

[Brandon Mitchell]

On Wed, 20 Aug 1997, Bruce Perens wrote:

> > How about a longer explanation on the list? I'm _SURE_ that _MANY_
> > inquiring minds would like to know.
[ long explination snipped ]

Ok, this makes sense.  I will probably never agree with the idea, but I 
do agree with the reasoning: make debian more available to the public.

> So, we want to make it clear that our CD, even if it is a revision or two
> behind, is still _current_ product in that you can easily hit our FTP site
> and update it to the latest and greatest. We are separating the release
> number from the revision number to emphasize this fact.

Ok, I don't think I've seen an explination of how all this effects the 
ftp site.  Earlier today (maybe on a different list), someone mentioned 
moving bo-updates to bo-untested, and releasing stuff in bo-updates as it 
is tested.  I wasn't able to understand if the bo directory would change 
after it's initial release.  If all of this is still up in the air, just 
say so and I'll follow the discussion.

One thing I don't understand, will there be a 2.0.1, or will it just be 
2.0 R1?  If there won't be a 2.0.1, then this is just a renaming of our 
release, and no real change of how things are done.

Thanks for the explination Bruce,
Brandon


--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] . 
Trouble?  e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .

Re: Debian Version Numbers Was: Is this the Debian Philosophy? (or.... $#@!@#$ bash 2.0!)

[Bruce Perens]

> How about a longer explanation on the list? I'm _SURE_ that _MANY_
> inquiring minds would like to know.

You'll have noticed from debian-announce that we have reported sales of
about 2200 Official 2-CD Sets over the last 8 weeks. Of those CDs, about
half were sold by one technical bookstore chain in Germany at DM 19.8,
about US$10.78 the other half were sold by Linux Systems Labs and
Cheap*Bytes at $4 plus shipping (probably $5, but you can get many CDs
shipped at that price if you go in with friends) and optional Debian
donation. There may be significant numbers of sales from other companies
who are not reporting to me, and I don't get exact numbers from the mail
order people.

This leads me to think that Debian sells in retail stores as well as as
mail order. The problem is that not many retail stores carry us yet.
The most widely distributed Debian incarnation in U.S. retail stores at
the moment seems to be the Walnut Creek Linux box set, at US$100 to
$130, which contains Debian 1.2.8 . Obviously we'd like to be available
at a more current version and a much better price point (after all,
Debian doesn't need to make money, we just want to get software to
users) and without the other Linux distributions in the same box -
Walnut Creek packages Slackware and Red Hat in the same box with
Debian, and of course there's a book on Slackware in the box.

One way we are approaching this is to sell into bookstores. In the
U.S., bookstores have a policy of returning all product that does not
sell to the distributor, often too late for the distributor to resell
it elsewhere. The "pipeline" from the manufacturer to the bookstore is
at least a month in duration, which is about how often we issue
revisions. Thus, we were almost guaranteeing that we would obsolete our
own software before it reached store shelves. There is a significant
risk involved if the distributor packages a CD with a book, because
they will get the (cheap) CD back along with the (much more expensive)
book, and often the book will be too dog-eared to sell again, and the
distributor will lose lots of money and not want to distribute Debian
any longer.

So, we want to make it clear that our CD, even if it is a revision or two
behind, is still _current_ product in that you can easily hit our FTP site
and update it to the latest and greatest. We are separating the release
number from the revision number to emphasize this fact.

Thanks

Bruce
-- 
Can you get your operating system fixed when you need it?
Linux - the supportable operating system. http://www.debian.org/support.html
Bruce Perens K6BP   [EMAIL PROTECTED]   510-215-3502


--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] . 
Trouble?  e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .

Re: Debian Version Numbers - My rant on this

[Marcus Brinkmann]

To make a too long thread even longer:

On Aug 19, Dave Cinege wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Aug 97 12:35 PDT, Bruce Perens wrote:
> > 
> >> So I am running Debian version 1.3 - and yet the CD says Debian 1.3.1 .
> >
> >Oops. My fault. The reason for two numbers is mostly marketing. I know
> >that marketing is anathema to most of us, but someone's gotta do it and
> >I'm afraid the task fell on me. Feel free to call me up if you need a
> >longer explanation.
> 
> Phooey! I like the naming scheme, and the system for updates. When I am using 
> something 
> Debian I want to know if it is 1.3.0 or 1.3.1, not 1.3 
> Rev-Guesswhatchangeswe'vemadewiththisrun.
> (debian_version should also reflect this)

Debian Version are only the first two numbers in fact: cat
/etc/debian_version
1.3

> Be a man among men! Trend set! A third rev number is the *RIGHT* way to do 
> things. 
> It is a linux-centric way to do things. Isn't the linux ethic about engineers 
> making the product 
> THEY want? (Not some marketing suit!) People use linux because of *the 
> product* not because of 
> a psycedelic world peace mind screw tv commercial. (Bring any companies to 
> mind?)
> Debian is also being accepted because of the productalot of people have 
> never even used CD's.
> Those of us that have probably started out with a CD-R with 'deb' scribbled 
> across the front in 
> black marker.

CD vendors are troubled if people insist on 1.3.2, if it's there, and they
have only 1.3.1. Don't give names to the vendors: the people are also stupid
sometimes. They don't realize that 1.3.1 is nearly as good as 1.3.2 - only a
few minor bug fixes. Perhaps for things they never use. (this applies to old
naming convention).

Debian needs a bit marketing, only a little bit. Please. There are people
out of the u.s., that have trouble getting the software for cheap. Telephone
bills in Germany for example are high, and vendors are expensive. With a bit
more marketing, there will be more competition, and the prices can fall.

Please accept that a system can be high-quality, freaky, cool and accepted,
used by people with black markers on that is scribbled 'CD-R' with a deb,
and being on the market at the same time. Debian is such a product.

The new naming scheme is just fine. We can be proud of it, that we have such
a quality product, that we only need a slight revision, no whole new version.

This does not mean, that we try to hide problems (see social contract), we
do not behave like Windoze, that is only released every two years, because
"there are no updates, because there are no errors".

Debian is currently 1.3.1, and there will perhaps be no 1.3.2 for a long
time. Or can you think of a change so major like XFree 3.3?

> My vote is to keep it as it is and be proud of it. Screw the cd makers if 
> they don't like it. What they 
> really want is to be able to hide the subversions from people. If they want 
> to do it, fine, just don't 
> ask us to change our entire functional naming system.

Just my opinion,
Marcus

-- 
"Rhubarb is no Egyptian god."
Marcus Brinkmann
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://homepage.ruhr-uni-bochum.de/Marcus.Brinkmann/


--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] . 
Trouble?  e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .

Re: Debian Version Numbers Was: Is this the Debian Philosophy? (or.... $#@!@#$ bash 2.0!)

[Pann McCuaig]

On Tue, 19 Aug 1997, Bruce Perens wrote:

> > So I am running Debian version 1.3 - and yet the CD says Debian 1.3.1 .
> 
> Oops. My fault. The reason for two numbers is mostly marketing. I know
> that marketing is anathema to most of us, but someone's gotta do it and
> I'm afraid the task fell on me. Feel free to call me up if you need a
> longer explanation.
> 
> But maybe we should start with Revision 2 rather than 1.

How about a longer explanation on the list? I'm _SURE_ that _MANY_
inquiring minds would like to know.

Cheers,
 Pann


--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] . 
Trouble?  e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .

Re: Debian Version Numbers - My rant on this

[Syd Alsobrook]

The way I see it is this. On ftp.debian.org there is a directory called
"bo-updates" in there are all of the updates, with the changes info, that
have happened since the last major release. Ok, so here is my point, since
any changes that are done are announced via the "debian-changes" list why
do we even bother with revision numbers. It would seem easy enough to me
that to make everyone happy we could put up a page that says "Look here is
what was changed, if you want it get it, if not bugger off" then we could
forget about all this revision worry and the retailers would be happy
because they would have a product that was going to last a few months. As
for the cd the version on the disk is 1.3 the X.X.1 and X.X.2 are for the
disk number ( ie. Debian 1.3 disk 1 and Debian 1.3 disk 2)

That is just my two cents.
Syd

http://syd.onsyd.com/

"How do you know you're having fun   
 if there's no one watching you have it."
Douglas Adams
finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP public key!


--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] . 
Trouble?  e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .

Re: Debian Version Numbers - My rant on this

[Dan Irvin]

--
> From: Dave Cinege <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: Bruce Perens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc: debian-user@lists.debian.org
> Subject: Re: Debian Version Numbers - My rant on this
> Date: Tuesday, August 19, 1997 8:20 PM
> 
> On Tue, 19 Aug 97 12:35 PDT, Bruce Perens wrote:
> > 
> >> So I am running Debian version 1.3 - and yet the CD says Debian 1.3.1


--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] . 
Trouble?  e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .

Re: Debian Version Numbers - My rant on this

[Dave Cinege]

On Tue, 19 Aug 1997 17:47:12 -0600 (MDT), Anthony Fok wrote:

>On Tue, 19 Aug 1997, Dave Cinege wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 19 Aug 97 12:35 PDT, Bruce Perens wrote:
>> > 
>> >> So I am running Debian version 1.3 - and yet the CD says Debian 1.3.1 .
>> >
>> >Oops. My fault. The reason for two numbers is mostly marketing. I know
>> >that marketing is anathema to most of us, but someone's gotta do it and
>> >I'm afraid the task fell on me. Feel free to call me up if you need a
>> >longer explanation.
>> 
>> Phooey! I like the naming scheme, and the system for updates. When I am 
>> using something 
>> Debian I want to know if it is 1.3.0 or 1.3.1, not 1.3 
Rev-Guesswhatchangeswe'vemadewiththisrun.
>> (debian_version should also reflect this)
>
>(The following are how I see this is.  If I am incorrect, please correct
>me.  :)
>
>New revisions are still distinguished.  There is nothing hidden in anyway. 
>For example, if there are some security fixes needed for a new release, it
>will be called Debian 1.3.1 Revision 1, Debian 1.3.1 Revision 2, and so
>forth.  This is to indicate that the changes are small.  (Usually just
>minor bug fixes, perhaps just a few megabytes which only takes a few
>minutes to half an hour for people to download from an FTP site.) 

Its monkey wrench time. When I query debian_version with my script what do I 
now look for?
1.3.1 is easy. Everything is delimited with a .  just use cut.

Will it now return 1.3.1r1 1.3 R1 or what? Does this look nice at boot up? Is 
this going to break any 
previous scripts?

>I like this idea.  It is a very good compromise, and indeed, nothing is
>hidden.  You may think of Debian 1.3.1 Revision 1 as 1.3.1.1; Debian 2.0
>Revision 1 as Debian 2.0.1.  It is up to you.  ^_^

I don't. 1.3.1 Rev 1 looks plain dumb. It looks like something so screwed we've 
got subpatches on 
top of patches.

-
http://www.psychosis.com/emc/   Elite MicroComputers   908-541-4214
http://www.psychosis.com/linux-router/  Linux Router Project


--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] . 
Trouble?  e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .

Re: Debian Version Numbers - My rant on this

[Anthony Fok]

On Tue, 19 Aug 1997, Dave Cinege wrote:

> On Tue, 19 Aug 97 12:35 PDT, Bruce Perens wrote:
> > 
> >> So I am running Debian version 1.3 - and yet the CD says Debian 1.3.1 .
> >
> >Oops. My fault. The reason for two numbers is mostly marketing. I know
> >that marketing is anathema to most of us, but someone's gotta do it and
> >I'm afraid the task fell on me. Feel free to call me up if you need a
> >longer explanation.
> 
> Phooey! I like the naming scheme, and the system for updates. When I am using 
> something 
> Debian I want to know if it is 1.3.0 or 1.3.1, not 1.3 
> Rev-Guesswhatchangeswe'vemadewiththisrun.
> (debian_version should also reflect this)

(The following are how I see this is.  If I am incorrect, please correct
me.  :)

New revisions are still distinguished.  There is nothing hidden in anyway. 
For example, if there are some security fixes needed for a new release, it
will be called Debian 1.3.1 Revision 1, Debian 1.3.1 Revision 2, and so
forth.  This is to indicate that the changes are small.  (Usually just
minor bug fixes, perhaps just a few megabytes which only takes a few
minutes to half an hour for people to download from an FTP site.) 

The next major release will be Debian 2.0.  If *small* revisions are
necessary, they'll be called Debian 2.0 Revision 1, Debian 2.0 Revision 2,
and so forth.  When there are major changes for a major released, it
will be called Debian 2.1 or something like that.

I like this idea.  It is a very good compromise, and indeed, nothing is
hidden.  You may think of Debian 1.3.1 Revision 1 as 1.3.1.1; Debian 2.0
Revision 1 as Debian 2.0.1.  It is up to you.  ^_^

-- 
Anthony Fok Tung-Ling[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Civil Engineeringhttp://www.ualberta.ca/~foka/
University of Alberta, CanadaKeep smiling!  *^_^*


--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] . 
Trouble?  e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .

Re: Debian Version Numbers - My rant on this

[Dave Cinege]

On Tue, 19 Aug 97 12:35 PDT, Bruce Perens wrote:
> 
>> So I am running Debian version 1.3 - and yet the CD says Debian 1.3.1 .
>
>Oops. My fault. The reason for two numbers is mostly marketing. I know
>that marketing is anathema to most of us, but someone's gotta do it and
>I'm afraid the task fell on me. Feel free to call me up if you need a
>longer explanation.

Phooey! I like the naming scheme, and the system for updates. When I am using 
something 
Debian I want to know if it is 1.3.0 or 1.3.1, not 1.3 
Rev-Guesswhatchangeswe'vemadewiththisrun.
(debian_version should also reflect this)

Be a man among men! Trend set! A third rev number is the *RIGHT* way to do 
things. 
It is a linux-centric way to do things. Isn't the linux ethic about engineers 
making the product 
THEY want? (Not some marketing suit!) People use linux because of *the product* 
not because of 
a psycedelic world peace mind screw tv commercial. (Bring any companies to 
mind?)
Debian is also being accepted because of the productalot of people have 
never even used CD's.
Those of us that have probably started out with a CD-R with 'deb' scribbled 
across the front in 
black marker.

My vote is to keep it as it is and be proud of it. Screw the cd makers if they 
don't like it. What they 
really want is to be able to hide the subversions from people. If they want to 
do it, fine, just don't 
ask us to change our entire functional naming system.

-
http://www.psychosis.com/emc/   Elite MicroComputers   908-541-4214
http://www.psychosis.com/linux-router/  Linux Router Project


--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] . 
Trouble?  e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .

Re: Debian Version Numbers Was: Is this the Debian Philosophy? (or.... $#@!@#$ bash 2.0!)

[Brandon Mitchell]

On Tue, 19 Aug 1997, Bruce Perens wrote:

> [snip] The reason for two numbers is mostly marketing. I know
> that marketing is anathema to most of us, but someone's gotta do it and
> I'm afraid the task fell on me. Feel free to call me up if you need a
> longer explanation.
> 
> But maybe we should start with Revision 2 rather than 1.

I really wish I could have seen the original discussion.  It wouldn't 
happen to be archived anywhere would it?  The only problem I forsee is 
that once the scheme goes into effect, what's to stop someone from asking 
a cd maker for 1.3.1 revision 2?  Perhaps we should periodically make a 
commercial release so the vendors know what they should be making, and 
users know what's going on.  If another vendor can make cd's for the 
minor releases too, more power to them.  But those will probably be the 
same ones making releases of unstable on a gold cd.

Also, how will the numbers change in the future: 1.3.1 R1, 1.3.1 R2... 
1.3.2 (commercial release), 1.3.2 R1...?  If so, revision 1 sounds better 
than revision 2.

Sorry if I'm digging up an old thread,
Brandon



--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] . 
Trouble?  e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .

Re: Debian Version Numbers Was: Is this the Debian Philosophy? (or.... $#@!@#$ bash 2.0!)

[Bruce Perens]

> bash$ cat /etc/debian_version
> 1.3
> bash$
> 
> So I am running Debian version 1.3 - and yet the CD says Debian 1.3.1 .

Oops. My fault. The reason for two numbers is mostly marketing. I know
that marketing is anathema to most of us, but someone's gotta do it and
I'm afraid the task fell on me. Feel free to call me up if you need a
longer explanation.

But maybe we should start with Revision 2 rather than 1.

Bruce
-- 
Can you get your operating system fixed when you need it?
Linux - the supportable operating system. http://www.debian.org/support.html
Bruce Perens K6BP   [EMAIL PROTECTED]   510-215-3502


--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] . 
Trouble?  e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .

Re: Debian Version Numbers Was: Is this the Debian Philosophy? (or.... $#@!@#$ bash 2.0!)

[Civ Kevin F. Havener]

I concur.  The next release of the stable tree should be called 1.3 
Revision 2, not 1.3.1 Revision 1.

What problem has this solved for CD retailers?  Will they still be bummed 
when 1.3 Revision X+1 is released and they just got 1.3 Revision X on the 
shelves?  Did it make any difference that it was called 1.3 Revision X 
instead of 1.3.X?  I think not.  The whole idea of appeasing marketing 
types seems ill-advised.  They just need to learn when to pick a release 
to burn for retail distribution.  If I were doing it, I'd never pick an 
X.Y.0 version.

If Debian were still using the business practice of the 1.2 release:  
just release the fixes whenever they're deemed suitable (and re-release 
them if necessary) the marketing types wouldn't have this problem.  
Instead, by bundling and holding the patches for further testing and 
releasing them as unit, we now have a meaningful minor revision number 
and a major headache!  I still like the new practice better, I just don't 
think the name change is going to allow the marketeers to fool themselves 
for very long :-).

  .kevin

On Wed, 20 Aug 1997, Anand Kumria wrote:

> > 1.3.1 != 1.3.1 Revision 1.
> > 
> > The latter is the first revision of the former.
> 
> That is not what I what I was saynig. 
> 
> bash$ cat /etc/debian_version
> 1.3
> bash$
> 
> So I am running Debian version 1.3 - and yet the CD says Debian 1.3.1 . My
> conclusion is that I am running Debian 1.3 Revision (PatchLevel) 1 - which
> would explain why the CD says Debian 1.3.1
> 
> I understand the commercial reason behind wanting a slower number: but
> Debian already has that -- the current version of Debian is 1.3 . I don't
> understand why you want to have two revision numbers. 
> 
> Anand.


--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] . 
Trouble?  e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .

Re: Debian Version Numbers Was: Is this the Debian Philosophy? (or.... $#@!@#$ bash 2.0!)

[Anand Kumria]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-

On Tue, 19 Aug 1997, joost witteveen wrote:

> > > The next version of the system will be called "Debian 1.3.1 Revision 1".
> > > People who make long-term products based on Debian requested that
> > > we not change the version number of the system if we were only making a
> > > few bug fixes. For example, X windows was rebuilt because Richard
> > 
> > Hang on, aren't I already running Debian 1.3 Revision 1 (or in other words
> > Debian 1.3.1)?
> 
> 1.3.1 != 1.3.1 Revision 1.
> 
> The latter is the first revision of the former.

That is not what I what I was saynig. 

bash$ cat /etc/debian_version
1.3
bash$

So I am running Debian version 1.3 - and yet the CD says Debian 1.3.1 . My
conclusion is that I am running Debian 1.3 Revision (PatchLevel) 1 - which
would explain why the CD says Debian 1.3.1

I understand the commercial reason behind wanting a slower number: but
Debian already has that -- the current version of Debian is 1.3 . I don't
understand why you want to have two revision numbers. 

Anand.

- --
 `When any government, or any church for that matter, undertakes to say to
  its subjects, "This you may not read, this you must not see, this you are
  forbidden to know," the end result is tyranny and oppression no matter how
  holy the motives' -- Robert A Heinlein, "If this goes on --"


-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: 2.6.3ia
Charset: noconv

iQCVAwUBM/mwZmRmcAD8BdppAQEhEwQAhCL0pG0vS8BNJSB88Q9NlSGW4fmL9SOn
xv3eYnNfLdjYMOZvGuD/cbeacnPM4nHGPOb2l1zHgv7lxdH+dwRb/psWSl3iDGMb
IkoU5ZE3oJo9O4bEswFnB1qLRRcoZs1RIC+nH4kF+ttN5q6HGTKv2mslQRRUmpi6
DA1XYNSm3PM=
=/NOf
-END PGP SIGNATURE-


--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] . 
Trouble?  e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .

Re: Debian Version Numbers Was: Is this the Debian Philosophy? (or.... $#@!@#$ bash 2.0!)

[joost witteveen]

> > The next version of the system will be called "Debian 1.3.1 Revision 1".
> > People who make long-term products based on Debian requested that
> > we not change the version number of the system if we were only making a
> > few bug fixes. For example, X windows was rebuilt because Richard
> 
> Hang on, aren't I already running Debian 1.3 Revision 1 (or in other words
> Debian 1.3.1)?

1.3.1 != 1.3.1 Revision 1.

The latter is the first revision of the former.

-- 
joost witteveen, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
#!/usr/bin/perl -sp0777ihttp://www.dcs.ex.ac.uk/~aba/rsa/


--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] . 
Trouble?  e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .