Bug#1077764: Ruling request on os-release specification implementation

2024-08-05 Thread Marc Haber
On Mon, Aug 05, 2024 at 02:07:54AM +0200, Timo Röhling wrote: > Yet I cannot (painlessly) distinguish a Debian image that > has been created with debootstrap from one that has been created with > mmdebstrap either, and I'm not losing sleep about it. Still it would actually be nice to have an indic

Bug#1077764: Ruling request on os-release specification implementation

2024-08-05 Thread Helmut Grohne
Hi Luca, On Fri, Aug 02, 2024 at 04:17:43PM +0100, Luca Boccassi wrote: > Validating is of course necessary. If the worry is around changing the > dependencies of base-files, I would be happy to carry the dependency on > a new os-release binary package in init-system-helpers, which is > already Es

Bug#1077764: Ruling request on os-release specification implementation

2024-08-05 Thread Helmut Grohne
Hi Gioele, On Mon, Aug 05, 2024 at 08:34:41AM +0200, Gioele Barabucci wrote: > as the maintainer (and upstream author) of the current lsb_release > implementation used in Debian and derivatives (src:lsb-release-minimal), I'd > like to voice my support in favor of having enough information in > /us

Bug#1077764: Ruling request on os-release specification implementation

2024-08-05 Thread Gioele Barabucci
On 05/08/24 09:38, Helmut Grohne wrote: | The Technical Committee restricts itself to choosing from or adopting compromises between solutions and decisions which have been proposed and reasonably thoroughly discussed elsewhere. The path forward is then, to freeze this discussion and «reasonab

Bug#1077764: Ruling request on os-release specification implementation

2024-08-05 Thread Simon McVittie
On Mon, 05 Aug 2024 at 09:02:51 +0200, Marc Haber wrote: > On Mon, Aug 05, 2024 at 02:07:54AM +0200, Timo Röhling wrote: > > > If trixie was identified as trixie, and sid was identified as unstable, > > > what compromise would be, er, compromised, precisely? > > Unstable would become less useful at

Bug#1077764: Ruling request on os-release specification implementation

2024-08-05 Thread Marc Haber
On Mon, Aug 05, 2024 at 09:25:31AM +0100, Simon McVittie wrote: > * Some package, let's call it foobar, reads os-release and changes its > behaviour according to whether it sees trixie/testing or unstable > > * foobar_1.2-3 is in unstable and works correctly there > > * The testing migration sc

Bug#1077764: Ruling request on os-release specification implementation

2024-08-05 Thread Luca Boccassi
On Mon, 5 Aug 2024 at 01:07, Timo Röhling wrote: > > Hi, > > * Luca Boccassi [2024-08-03 16:15]: > >The only question is whether they do that and then say "it's nice > >that we have a common, standard, agnostic way of figuring this out > >and it just works (TM) on Debian too", or, "man this Debia

Bug#1077764: Ruling request on os-release specification implementation

2024-08-05 Thread Luca Boccassi
On Mon, 5 Aug 2024 at 03:15, Sean Whitton wrote: > > Hello, > > So far, although many people are sympathetic to the frustration at > distinguishing testing from unstable in practice, I don't believe anyone > has spoken in favour of overriding Santiago, besides Luca. To clarify, do you mean "TC me

Bug#1077764: Ruling request on os-release specification implementation

2024-08-05 Thread Luca Boccassi
On Mon, 5 Aug 2024 at 12:21, Luca Boccassi wrote: > > On Mon, 5 Aug 2024 at 03:15, Sean Whitton wrote: > > > > Hello, > > > > So far, although many people are sympathetic to the frustration at > > distinguishing testing from unstable in practice, I don't believe anyone > > has spoken in favour of

Bug#1077764: Ruling request on os-release specification implementation

2024-08-05 Thread Luca Boccassi
On Mon, 5 Aug 2024 at 09:39, Marc Haber wrote: > > On Mon, Aug 05, 2024 at 09:25:31AM +0100, Simon McVittie wrote: > > * Some package, let's call it foobar, reads os-release and changes its > > behaviour according to whether it sees trixie/testing or unstable > > > > * foobar_1.2-3 is in unstabl

Bug#1077764: Ruling request on os-release specification implementation

2024-08-05 Thread Luca Boccassi
On Mon, 5 Aug 2024 at 08:39, Helmut Grohne wrote: > > Hi Luca, > > On Fri, Aug 02, 2024 at 04:17:43PM +0100, Luca Boccassi wrote: > > Validating is of course necessary. If the worry is around changing the > > dependencies of base-files, I would be happy to carry the dependency on > > a new os-rele

Bug#1077764: Ruling request on os-release specification implementation

2024-08-05 Thread Luca Boccassi
On Mon, 5 Aug 2024 at 08:42, Helmut Grohne wrote: > > Hi Gioele, > > On Mon, Aug 05, 2024 at 08:34:41AM +0200, Gioele Barabucci wrote: > > as the maintainer (and upstream author) of the current lsb_release > > implementation used in Debian and derivatives (src:lsb-release-minimal), I'd > > like to

Bug#1077764: Ruling request on os-release specification implementation

2024-08-05 Thread Luca Boccassi
On Mon, 5 Aug 2024 at 13:04, Luca Boccassi wrote: > > On Mon, 5 Aug 2024 at 08:42, Helmut Grohne wrote: > > > > Hi Gioele, > > > > On Mon, Aug 05, 2024 at 08:34:41AM +0200, Gioele Barabucci wrote: > > > as the maintainer (and upstream author) of the current lsb_release > > > implementation used i

Bug#1077764: Ruling request on os-release specification implementation

2024-08-05 Thread Sean Whitton
Hello Gioele, On Mon 05 Aug 2024 at 08:34am +02, Gioele Barabucci wrote: > as the maintainer (and upstream author) of the current lsb_release > implementation used in Debian and derivatives (src:lsb-release-minimal), I'd > like to voice my support in favor of having enough information in > /usr/l

Bug#1077764: Ruling request on os-release specification implementation

2024-08-05 Thread Sean Whitton
Hello, On Mon 05 Aug 2024 at 12:21pm +01, Luca Boccassi wrote: > On Mon, 5 Aug 2024 at 03:15, Sean Whitton wrote: >> >> Hello, >> >> So far, although many people are sympathetic to the frustration at >> distinguishing testing from unstable in practice, I don't believe anyone >> has spoken in fav