Paul E Condon wrote: > Jochen Schulz wrote: > > Jerome BENOIT: > > > I have just migrate to Etch, and I have a naive question. > > > My current /etc/debian_version file still contains "3.1", > > > which is valid release for Sarge: > > > 1] what must /etc/debian_version contain for an Etch box ? > > This is not yet decided, I think. The file is part of the package > > base-files and will be updated if there is a consesus on the version > > number for etch.
The number is at this time not decided. It is picked by the release
manager for the release. At this time I do not believe a release
number for Etch has been announced.
> > > 2] does it really matter ?
> >
> > No. The file is just there to help scripts find out the version
> > currently installed but I am not aware of any important things depending
> > on it.
Agreed.
> This seems to me to be a very un-Debian state of affairs. Is there a bug
> report about this? Is it help to a script to give a manifestly wrong
> answer to such a straightforward question?
There is no bug there. And to me it seems very Debian. What problem
does this cause?
Meanwhile if you look in unstable you will see that a new base-files
has been uploaded. "[2005-06-06] Accepted 3.1.3" with a changelog
that says:
* Changed issue, issue.net and debian_release to "testing/unstable".
Not that this is a lot useful, but at least is what people expect.
The new base-files package will go through the same process as any
other package and will eventually migrate to testing. Right now the
package is "Too young, only 1 of 5 days old" in the status and not yet
built on all of the architectures yet.
http://packages.qa.debian.org/b/base-files.html
Also, this by itself does not make a machine Sarge. For example, if
you have a Sarge base-files but point sources.list to Sid and install
a zillion new shared libraries and binaries but avoid upgrading
base-files then the machine is now considered to be a Sid machine even
though base-files still would say 3.1.
Bob
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
