On Thu, Dec 18, 2008, Santiago Vila wrote:
> debian_version is *not* reliable if you are using testing or unstable.
I personally care about codename; not version.
--
Loïc Minier
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Cont
FWIW, it also broke local scripts on my hosts: I switch between build
envs depending on lsb-release output. Until know it would look at
sources.list to gather what I was running (implementation of which
was painfully slow, but that's another matter); now it reports lenny
when I run unstable/s
On Wed, 17 Dec 2008, Adeodato Simó wrote:
> We are going to introduce a package that ships a "lsb_release" file, and
> we're going to handle it via the proposed- suites. Hopefully
> lsb-release (the program) will move to using that file, but I'm know
> thinking it could be reasonable to move debia
Hi,
Adeodato Simó wrote:
> I talked with Rene, and we (sort of) agreed you should not worry about
> this for Lenny. It is unfortunate that the way base-files is handled
FTR, I never disputed that. But it should be fixed for sid as soon
as base-files 5 migrated at least by reintroducing "testing/u
* Santiago Vila [Mon, 15 Dec 2008 11:53:49 +0100]:
> As debian-installer people is already doing Release Candidates, I
> think it's time those RCs carry 5.0 as the version number:
> base-files (5) unstable; urgency=low
> * Changed issue, issue.net and debian_version to read "5.0".
> * Change
Hi,
Santiago Vila wrote:
> And then I could argue that /etc/debian_version is almost always wrong
> in testing and unstable (because of it saying "testing/unstable") and
> that the time between now and the release of lenny does not deserve an
> exception.
No, it's correct. It says testing/unstabl
On Mon, 15 Dec 2008, Rene Engelhard wrote:
> b) I can still prepare it without uploading it to bpo, no?
Yes, of course you can *prepare* it, but IMHO you should not ask
everybody to treat lenny as if it were already released as stable,
when it's not, or submit bugs of severity "important" against
Hi,
Santiago Vila wrote:
> > Santiago Vila wrote:
> > > BTW: Should I worry about Bug#508772? This is the very first time in
> > > 10 years that someone seems unconvenienced by seeing a version number
> > > like 5.0 in unstable for a few weeks. Are there really packages which
> > > break because o
On Mon, 15 Dec 2008, Rene Engelhard wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Santiago Vila wrote:
> > BTW: Should I worry about Bug#508772? This is the very first time in
> > 10 years that someone seems unconvenienced by seeing a version number
> > like 5.0 in unstable for a few weeks. Are there really packages which
>
Hi,
Santiago Vila wrote:
> BTW: Should I worry about Bug#508772? This is the very first time in
> 10 years that someone seems unconvenienced by seeing a version number
> like 5.0 in unstable for a few weeks. Are there really packages which
> break because of this? If not, I feel that the BTS is be
As debian-installer people is already doing Release Candidates, I
think it's time those RCs carry 5.0 as the version number:
base-files (5) unstable; urgency=low
* Changed issue, issue.net and debian_version to read "5.0".
* Changed FAQ so that users of lenny as stable will know what happens
11 matches
Mail list logo
