On Fri 06 Jul 2018 at 08:41:58 (+0000), Curt wrote:
> On 2018-07-06, David Wright <deb...@lionunicorn.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > Hmm, I struggle to see the connection between what I asked for and
> > what you wrote. From your later post, I guess the answer is that
> > editing /etc/debian_version risks provoking expletives from other
> > users of the system.
> >
> > That said, I do agree with what you wrote.
>
> So wait, now, after saying this
>
> What seems to be lost on people who feel a pressing need for
> /etc/debian_version to contain a number to satisfy some script that
> they have written (which seems to be the usual reason) is that
> /etc/debian_version is a configuration file. Look in the
> .deb file and there it is, along with /etc/issue{,.net} which
> determine how you are greeted {locally,remotely}. So admins are
> free to set them all how they like.
That paragraph is a correct quotation of what I wrote.
> we discover that what you actually believe is, although admins are free to do
> so (like you're free to blindfold yourself and jog in the middle of the
> freeway
> at rush hour in L.A with a broom sticking out of your wazoo), you'd have to be
> insane to actually edit /etc/debian_version, which is *not*, in fact, a
> configuration file
This is something you just made up and is unrelated to what I have written.
> (because that's what Wooledge said that you're agreeing
> with here)?
[I think you mean "because that's what Wooledge said, which you're agreeing
with here".]
Perhaps you have temporarily forgotten how quoting should work on a
mailing list, and therefore your interpretation of
https://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2018/07/msg00199.html
is completed erroneous. Read what I posted:
1)
"[DW] Hmm, I struggle to see the connection between what I asked for
and what you wrote."
In other words, this reply:
'[GW] Your hypothetical case describes a shell script that is
supposed to detect what version of Debian it's running on,
for whatever reason.
If this script doesn't know how to handle the string
"testing/unstable" then it's doing a really crappy job of
"supporting" Debian systems.'
does not answer:
"[DW] Would you explain what is unsafe about it and why
/etc/debian_version is a configuration file, or offer
a sensible alternative."
2)
"[DW] That said, I do agree with what you wrote."
In other words, I agree with the statement I quoted there:
'[GW] Your hypothetical case describes a shell script that is
supposed to detect what version of Debian it's running on,
for whatever reason.
If this script doesn't know how to handle the string
"testing/unstable" then it's doing a really crappy job of
"supporting" Debian systems.'
It doesn't mean I agree with everything they ever wrote in the thread
on the matter, just what I quoted, which is why I quoted it.
> So, Joey Hess is a crazy idiot, for instance?
Why would you think of calling Joey a "crazy idiot"?
> https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=81249
>
> Local changes made to /etc/debian_version (in this case changing it from
> "testing/unstable" to "unstable" since that is what this system is really
> using) are wiped out when the package is upgraded or reinstalled:
The evidence presented in the bug report clearly shows that
/etc/debian_version gets overwritten, so one has to assume that,
at the time, it wasn't flagged as a conffile. That's supported
by typing:
$ zgrep -A7 '(2.2.8)' /usr/share/doc/base-files/changelog.gz
There was some debate around this time about what /etc/debian_version
should contain during development, as you can see with:
$ zgrep -A16 '(2.2.6)' /usr/share/doc/base-files/changelog.gz
The fact that /etc/debian_version *is* a *configuration* file
was clearly promulgated in:
https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2001/01/msg00502.html
Cheers,
David.
