On Thu 05 Jul 2018 at 12:42:36 (-0400), Greg Wooledge wrote: > On Thu, Jul 05, 2018 at 11:06:22AM -0500, David Wright wrote: > > But if you're a sysadmin who has a script that wants/needs a version > > *number* for any reason, then /etc/debian_version is the safest file > > to modify. > > I strongly disagree. The safest file to modify would be the broken > shell script that needs a "release number".
Would you explain what is unsafe about it and why /etc/debian_version is a configuration file, or offer a sensible alternative. > Either that, or the brain of the system administrator who installed > testing or unstable on this production system (because what other kind > of system would be running a broken shell script to detect a release > number that doesn't necessarily exist). You've lost me. My assumption would be that the misguided script writer wrote the script(s) on a stable (or older) system without realising that unreleased systems don't have a numeric debian_version. They might only realise their mistake when they needed to install/ upgrade to testing for some unrelated reason and some of their scripts (or even programs) started throwing errors. If they were trying to meet pressing deadlines, I would not deny them the sticking plaster approach in favour of brain surgery or potentially long debugging sessions. "Stupid" or not, they deserve help, commonly known as a workaround or hack. There's plenty of evidence that some people here employ far worse hacks upon workarounds upon hacks than this one. It's human nature. Cheers, David.
