On Wed 11 Jul 2018 at 11:53:29 (+0000), Curt wrote:
> On 2018-07-10, David Wright <deb...@lionunicorn.co.uk> wrote:
Yes, I wrote a post on 2018-07-10 but you haven't quoted any of it here.
> You following up to Woole[d]ge:
>
> 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 there was an equivocal quality there, Dav[id], as to which of Woole[d]ge's
> articles "what you wrote" was referring (the one you were following up
> to above, or the "fucking" one below to which you alluded--so I *asked*,
> indicated by my question mark, which my tone may have rendered somehow
> accusatory).
Your tone, and your language, indicated that the question was rhetorical.
But you are now peddling "an equivocal quality" argument by stripping
the quotation above away from the post it belonged to:
https://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2018/07/msg00185.html
'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.'
and unilaterally deciding that it's the response to a post that (a)
I disagree with and (b) that's actually in a different subthread, the
Nicholas Geovanis one:
167 sL 180704 Richard Hector (4.2K) └─>
168 L 180704 John Crawley (2.7K) ├─>
169 L 180705 Curt (1.0K) ├─>
170 L 180705 Joe (0.8K) │ └─>
171 L 180705 Curt (1.0K) │ ├─>
172 F 180705 To Debian-User (2.1K) │ └─>
173 L 180705 Greg Wooledge (0.6K) │ └─>
174 F 180705 To Debian-User (1.5K) │ └─>
175 L 180705 Greg Wooledge (0.9K) │ └─> ← I commented on this
(msg00185.html)
176 L 180705 Nicholas Geovanis (1.4K) │ ├─>
177 L 180705 Joe (1.1K) │ │ ├─>
178 L 180705 Greg Wooledge (1.0K) │ │ └─>
179 L 180705 Nicholas Geovanis (0.9K) │ │ └─>
180 L 180705 Greg Wooledge (0.4K) │ │ └─> ← contains
the f-word (msg00191.html)
181 L 180705 Nicholas Geovanis (1.5K) │ │ └─>
182 F 180705 To Debian-User (1.8K) │ │ ├─>
183 sL 180706 The Wanderer (2.5K) │ │ └─>
184 L 180706 Curt (1.5K) │ │ └─>
185 F 180705 To Debian-User (1.2K) │ └─> ← my comment under
discussion (msg00199.html)
186 L 180706 Curt (1.5K) │ └─>
187 L 180706 Greg Wooledge (0.7K) │ ├─>
188 L 180706 Curt (0.1K) │ │ └─>
189 L 180706 davidson (1.5K) │ │ └─>
190 L 180707 Curt (1.9K) │ │ └─>
191 L 180709 Greg Wooledge (1.2K) │ │ └─>
192 L 180709 Curt (0.5K) │ │ └─>
There's no reference to Message-id: 0180705204615.xlgol2g2kuace...@eeg.ccf.org
(that's msg00191.html) in my msg00199.html. Check it for yourself.
Perhaps it's threading as well as quoting that's causing you difficulty.
> I do admit that I believed the latter interpretation
> without even considering the real possibility that it was indeed the
> former, probably because of a minor incident in the Latex/PDF thread we were
> both involved in a few moons ago, a can of beans not worth opening.
Without any reference, it's difficult to know what you're talking about.
But I'm sorry that it's obviously bugging you.
Here's the contents of the post that you keep wanting to attach
my comment to. If it helps, I'll annotate it here.
> The Woole[d]ge post:
>
> It is not a fucking configuration file that you edit.
https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2001/01/msg00502.html
> It is supposed to be read only.
>
> Only a crazy idiot would manually edit the file that tells you what
> version of the OS you're running.
https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2001/01/msg00550.html
https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2001/01/msg00558.html
> It would be like editing registry entries in Microsoft Windows to make
> it look like you're running a different version of Windows.
I lost track of windows versions around 1996 and never got beyond
DOS 6.22 for serious work. Apart from knowing that there are versions
7 (good?), 8 (bad?) and 10 (current) still around, I don't know any
more than that, so the metaphor is lost on me.
Cheers,
David.
