On 2013-06-01 20:48, Christian PERRIER wrote:
(/me subscribed to -release)
Okay, I'll try and remember. We have to tend towards assuming that
people aren't, in the case of -release.
Quoting Adam D. Barratt ([email protected]):
On 2013-06-01 6:01, Christian PERRIER wrote:
>Quoting Adam D. Barratt ([email protected]):
>
>>We've had a quick chat about this, and our preference would be for
>>the option you've termed "ugly". Now that we've stopped using the
>>three part versioning, it seems more logical for wheezy to be
>>"Debian 7" and for the issue files to reflect that.
>
>If this is the chosen design, why not have /etc/issue forget about
>the
>".0" part, then?
That's exactly what Santiago's "ugly" option does. debian_release
continues to change at each point release, the other files are
modified to just use "7".
Is there a rationale for *not* using Santiago's good option?
Personally, I'm not convinced that it's particularly interesting in
terms of a general "system identification" (as issue(5) refers to it) to
include the point release version; the system is running Wheezy or
Debian 7. debian_version otoh will appear in information such as
reportbug output, so having the precision there seems more useful.
There's also a higher chance that issue{,.net} will be locally
modified. I don't know how widespread that practice is, but I do know
that at least one widely available guide to configuring Debian used to
suggest doing so in order to add e.g. pre-login messages for SSH
connections. (I don't remember which one, but its appearance in
documentation at $DAYJOB was incorporated from said guide some years
ago.)
Regards,
Adam
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]
Archive:
http://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
