Web lists-archives.com

Re: Debian testing - release number




On Fri 06 Jul 2018 at 08:41:58 (+0000), Curt wrote:
> On 2018-07-06, David Wright <deblis@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> > Hmm, I struggle to see the connection between what I asked for and
> > what you wrote. From your later post, I guess the answer is that
> > editing /etc/debian_version risks provoking expletives from other
> > users of the system.
> >
> > That said, I do agree with what you wrote.
> 
> So wait, now, after saying this
> 
>  What seems to be lost on people who feel a pressing need for
>  /etc/debian_version to contain a number to satisfy some script that
>  they have written (which seems to be the usual reason) is that
>  /etc/debian_version is a configuration file. Look in the
>  .deb file and there it is, along with /etc/issue{,.net} which
>  determine how you are greeted {locally,remotely}. So admins are
>  free to set them all how they like.

That paragraph is a correct quotation of what I wrote.

> we discover that what you actually believe is, although admins are free to do
> so (like you're free to blindfold yourself and jog in the middle of the freeway
> at rush hour in L.A with a broom sticking out of your wazoo), you'd have to be
> insane to actually edit /etc/debian_version, which is *not*, in fact, a
> configuration file

This is something you just made up and is unrelated to what I have written.

> (because that's what Wooledge said that you're agreeing
> with here)?

[I think you mean "because that's what Wooledge said, which you're agreeing
with here".]

Perhaps you have temporarily forgotten how quoting should work on a
mailing list, and therefore your interpretation of
https://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2018/07/msg00199.html
is completed erroneous. Read what I posted:

1)

    "[DW] Hmm, I struggle to see the connection between what I asked for
     and what you wrote."

In other words, this reply:

    '[GW] Your hypothetical case describes a shell script that is
     supposed to detect what version of Debian it's running on,
     for whatever reason.
     If this script doesn't know how to handle the string
     "testing/unstable" then it's doing a really crappy job of
     "supporting" Debian systems.'

does not answer:

    "[DW] Would you explain what is unsafe about it and why
     /etc/debian_version is a configuration file, or offer
     a sensible alternative."

2)

    "[DW] That said, I do agree with what you wrote."

In other words, I agree with the statement I quoted there:

    '[GW] Your hypothetical case describes a shell script that is
     supposed to detect what version of Debian it's running on,
     for whatever reason.
     If this script doesn't know how to handle the string
     "testing/unstable" then it's doing a really crappy job of
     "supporting" Debian systems.'

It doesn't mean I agree with everything they ever wrote in the thread
on the matter, just what I quoted, which is why I quoted it.

> So, Joey Hess is a crazy idiot, for instance?

Why would you think of calling Joey a "crazy idiot"?

> https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=81249
> 
>  Local changes made to /etc/debian_version (in this case changing it from
>  "testing/unstable" to "unstable" since that is what this system is really
>  using) are wiped out when the package is upgraded or reinstalled:

The evidence presented in the bug report clearly shows that
/etc/debian_version gets overwritten, so one has to assume that,
at the time, it wasn't flagged as a conffile. That's supported
by typing:

$ zgrep -A7 '(2.2.8)' /usr/share/doc/base-files/changelog.gz

There was some debate around this time about what /etc/debian_version
should contain during development, as you can see with:

$ zgrep -A16 '(2.2.6)' /usr/share/doc/base-files/changelog.gz

The fact that /etc/debian_version *is* a *configuration* file
was clearly promulgated in:

https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2001/01/msg00502.html

Cheers,
David.