Hi, * Luca Boccassi <bl...@debian.org> [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 Debian thing sure is a gigantic pile of rubbish, it's so painful to deal with it as opposed to literally everything else, why do I even bother with it".Can we please dial down on the hyperbole? This is not some teenage drama about the Cool Kids stopping to like us if we don't do This Random Thing, so let's keep it about the technical implications.[...]The only thing you can do as a TC member is decide whether users should continue to curse Debian while they do have to open-code bad workarounds exclusively for it
Can you be a bit more specific about the negative consequences? You seem to imply that distinguishing testing and unstable images is desirable just for the sake of it. 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.I just showed you - I have two images, with radically different lifecycles, and I cannot tell them apart. I can tell apart any other version of any other distribution, not this one. That's a negative consequence for me. If you meant to say it's ok for you that there is such a negative consequence for me, well, ok, that's not great, but fine I guess. But it should be pretty obvious that it is negative for me: I am telling you it is.
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 weeding out bugs in packages before they reach testing, which is pretty much the main reason for unstable to exist in the first place.
Of course, this is not an absolute. Maybe following your proposal has such a big advantage for Debian and its users that we should accept this drawback. I just have not seen that argument yet.
The lifecycle is what matters for os-release. This is an extremely important distinction and it is crucial here, because this is what os-release is about, and this bug is about os-release and its implementation, not about generic ideas.I understand why this distinction is important for the os-release spec, but that does not automatically make it important for Debian users as well. Let me concede that people tend to use testing and unstable as if they were official Debian releases. So what would be a workflow that is hampered by the current situation? What do people *actually* do that makes your proposed change useful to them?
Cheers TimoPS. I'm emailing out of vacation, so it might take me a few days to reply again.
-- ⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀ ╭────────────────────────────────────────────────────╮ ⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ │ Timo Röhling │ ⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ │ 9B03 EBB9 8300 DF97 C2B1 23BF CC8C 6BDD 1403 F4CA │ ⠈⠳⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀ ╰────────────────────────────────────────────────────╯
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
