On Fri, Dec 28, 2007 at 08:20:01AM +0100, Frans Pop wrote:
> I agree with Anthony that it is very much preferable to have a solution
> that's just able to automatically determine the correct version.
Okay, so here's a updated version that generates both debian_version and
lsb-release as specced by
[Anthony Towns]
> The main limitation is that it's a nuisance to update -- you can't
> differentiate testing and unstable because of that, eg, and when we're due
> for a release we end up having testing/unstable pretend they're really
> stable already for a while, eg. Updating it more often just m
* Frans Pop [Fri, 28 Dec 2007 08:20:01 +0100]:
> > As said in my previous mail, I'm willing to take care of that.
> For the next 40 years? Can you really guarantee that you will be able to do
> this in time and without errors for each and every release and point release?
Thanks for the vouch of
Adeodato Simó wrote:
> In other words, I plan on uploading a version to sid, block it from
> migrating to testing, and uploading another version via t-p-u. Stable
> point releases will get updated via s-p-u. That makes it two initial
> uploads, and then twice per stable release (t-p-u; release; t-
* Anthony Towns [Fri, 28 Dec 2007 06:32:18 +1000]:
> On Thu, Dec 27, 2007 at 04:21:20PM +0100, Adeodato Sim?? wrote:
> > * Anthony Towns [Thu, 27 Dec 2007 17:34:49 +1000]:
> > > On Wed, Dec 26, 2007 at 11:53:25PM +0100, Adeodato Sim?? wrote:
> > > > *Personally*, I like the idea of Javier Fern??nd
On Thu, Dec 27, 2007 at 04:21:20PM +0100, Adeodato Sim?? wrote:
> * Anthony Towns [Thu, 27 Dec 2007 17:34:49 +1000]:
> > On Wed, Dec 26, 2007 at 11:53:25PM +0100, Adeodato Sim?? wrote:
> > > *Personally*, I like the idea of Javier Fern??ndez-Sanguino expressed in
> > > the mail linked above of keep
* Anthony Towns [Thu, 27 Dec 2007 17:34:49 +1000]:
> On Wed, Dec 26, 2007 at 11:53:25PM +0100, Adeodato Sim?? wrote:
> > *Personally*, I like the idea of Javier Fern??ndez-Sanguino expressed in
> > the mail linked above of keeping debian_version as is, and introducing
> > /etc/lsb-release with det
On Wed, Dec 26, 2007 at 11:53:25PM +0100, Adeodato Sim?? wrote:
> *Personally*, I like the idea of Javier Fern??ndez-Sanguino expressed in
> the mail linked above of keeping debian_version as is, and introducing
> /etc/lsb-release with detailed information like:
> DISTRIB_ID=Debian
> DISTRIB_RE
Martin Zobel-Helas wrote:
> Hi,
Hi
> i would like to propose that we change /etc/debian_version with
> beginning of lenny to also show which revision of a release is
> installed.
Ack.
> Rational: We do regular updates to stable releases (called point
> releases) from time to time but you can't
* Martin Zobel-Helas [Wed, 26 Dec 2007 23:33:17 +0100]:
> Hi,
Hi.
I personally have nothing against. However, remembering the thread at
[1], I'm not sure what the base-files maintainer will think of that.
[1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2007/05/msg01138.html
*Personally*, I like th
Hi,
i would like to propose that we change /etc/debian_version with
beginning of lenny to also show which revision of a release is
installed.
Rational: We do regular updates to stable releases (called point
releases) from time to time but you can't tell from installed files
which revision (point
11 matches
Mail list logo
