> " " == Martin Keegan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Martijn van Oosterhout <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Joey Hess wrote: > I think /etc/mtab is on its way out. A 2.4.x
>> kernel with devfs has a > /proc/mounts that actually has a
>> proper line for the root filesystem. >
Martijn van Oosterhout <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Joey Hess wrote:
> > I think /etc/mtab is on its way out. A 2.4.x kernel with devfs has a
> > /proc/mounts that actually has a proper line for the root filesystem.
> > Linking the two files would probably actually work on such a system
> > with
On Sat, 6 Jan 2001, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On Jan 06, Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED]:/tmp>mount -o loop foo 1
> Why don't we just patch mount to use /var/run/mtab?
> I don't know about any other program which modifies it.
If we use /var/run/mtab, how does mount update
On Sat, Jan 06, 2001 at 01:49:59PM +0100, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On Jan 06, Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED]:/tmp>mount -o loop foo 1
> Why don't we just patch mount to use /var/run/mtab?
> I don't know about any other program which modifies it.
because /var is not alwa
On Sat, Jan 06, 2001 at 02:19:36PM +0100, Santiago Vila wrote:
> On Sat, 6 Jan 2001, Christopher Yeoh wrote:
> > This information could instead be stored in /etc/lsb-release. One of
> > the reasons for the creation of this file was to standardise across
> > the distributions the name and format of
On Jan 06, Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]:/tmp>mount -o loop foo 1
Why don't we just patch mount to use /var/run/mtab?
I don't know about any other program which modifies it.
--
ciao,
Marco
Santiago Vila writes:
> > This information could instead be stored in /etc/lsb-release. One of
> > the reasons for the creation of this file was to standardise across
> > the distributions the name and format of the file which contains this
> > type of information.
>
> Interesting. Is that file in
On Sat, 6 Jan 2001, Christopher Yeoh wrote:
> > So: Is there a *technical* reason to change /etc/debian_version other
> > than it being just "nicer"?
>
> This information could instead be stored in /etc/lsb-release. One of
> the reasons for the creation of this file was to standardise across
> the
Santiago Vila writes:
> something other than "2.2" or "testing/unstable" could potentially
> break any script or program which expects /etc/debian_version to be
> either "2.2" or "testing/unstable" (since this is what base-files provides).
> In this case not only there is no benefit from changing
On Fri, Jan 05, 2001 at 12:33:34PM +0100, Santiago Vila wrote:
> Joey Hess (See Bug#81249) complains about the fact that local changes
> to /etc/debian_version are not preserved on upgrades (he wants this
> file to read "unstable" instead of the current "testing/unstable").
>
> What should I do?
Joey Hess wrote:
> Santiago Vila wrote:
> > In short: The reason you want to change /etc/debian_version is really
> > a technical one or it is purely aesthetical (which is what I suspect)?
>
> I know that the system is and will be running unstable in the future.
> I'm the only admin. So I'm probabl
Martijn van Oosterhout wrote:
> Does 2.4 now also include the information on which loop devices are
> related to which filesystems? AFAIK that's the only thing that went
> strange after linking /proc/mounts and /etc/mtab; loop devices not being
> freed after unmounting.
Ah, I knew there was somet
Joey Hess wrote:
> I think /etc/mtab is on its way out. A 2.4.x kernel with devfs has a
> /proc/mounts that actually has a proper line for the root filesystem.
> Linking the two files would probably actually work on such a system
> without breakage.
Does 2.4 now also include the information on whi
Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> Previously Joey Hess wrote:
> > BTW, what is that file doing in /etc if it is not a configuration file?
>
> It is a configuration file.
Whoops, I somehow managed to miss it when listing dpkg's conffiles.
--
see shy jo
Previously Joey Hess wrote:
> BTW, what is that file doing in /etc if it is not a configuration file?
It is a configuration file.
Wichert.
--
/ Generally uninteresting signature - ignore at your convenience \
| [EMAIL PROTECT
Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> You mean the /etc/dpkg/origins/ files?
BTW, what is that file doing in /etc if it is not a configuration file?
--
see shy jo
Santiago Vila wrote:
> > > * Remove this file altogether, since it serves no useful purpose.
> >
> > The file does serve a useful purpose: it concentrates the debian version
> > number string that is used in a number of places (issue.net and so on)
> > into one central place to be modified.
>
> Wh
Previously Vince Mulhollon wrote:
> How about creating a directory called "/etc/organizations" including the
> following files:
You mean the /etc/dpkg/origins/ files?
Wichert.
--
/ Generally uninteresting signature - ignore at
.org>Fax to:
Subject: Re: What to do about
/etc/debian_version
01/05/2001
Joey Hess wrote:
> Santiago Vila wrote:
> > * Remove this file altogether, since it serves no useful purpose.
>
> The file does serve a useful purpose: it concentrates the debian version
> number string that is used in a number of places (issue.net and so on)
> into one central place to be modified
* Bart Schuller ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [010105 07:48]:
> I've seen third-party software install scripts use the file to determine
> which Linux distribution it's running on.
Yes, I think it's important to have one central file that can show
(roughly) which version of the OS is running. Being human a
On Fri, Jan 05, 2001 at 08:07:44AM -0500, Michael Stone wrote:
> Screw it, just kill the file. We don't have a mechanism for coping with
> it.
I've seen third-party software install scripts use the file to determine
which Linux distribution it's running on.
--
The idea is that the first face sho
Screw it, just kill the file. We don't have a mechanism for coping with
it.
--
Mike Stone
Michael Stone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Move it to /var/lib/dpkg
Nope, debian_release is independent on the dpkg used. /var/lib/dpkg/
would be a most unintuitive place to place the version of the
distribution as a whole.
On Fri, Jan 05, 2001 at 12:33:34PM +0100, Santiago Vila wrote:
> Joey Hess (See Bug#81249) complains about the fact that local changes
> to /etc/debian_version are not preserved on upgrades (he wants this
> file to read "unstable" instead of the current "testing/unstable").
>
> What should I do?
Santiago Vila wrote:
> * Remove this file altogether, since it serves no useful purpose.
The file does serve a useful purpose: it concentrates the debian version
number string that is used in a number of places (issue.net and so on)
into one central place to be modified.
> * Make it a conffile (a
26 matches
Mail list logo
