Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.debian.user > #170605 > unrolled thread

debian version ID

Back to article view | Back to linux.debian.user

Contents

  debian version ID Felix Miata <mrmazda@earthlink.net> - 2016-08-01 09:00 +0200
    Re: debian version ID Ben Finney <ben+debian@benfinney.id.au> - 2016-08-01 09:30 +0200
      Re: debian version ID Felix Miata <mrmazda@earthlink.net> - 2016-08-01 11:00 +0200
        Re: debian version ID Ben Finney <ben+debian@benfinney.id.au> - 2016-08-01 12:00 +0200
    Re: debian version ID "Andrew M.A. Cater" <amacater@galactic.demon.co.uk> - 2016-08-01 09:40 +0200
      debian version ID Jonathan de Boyne Pollard <J.deBoynePollard-newsgroups@NTLWorld.com> - 2016-08-09 11:10 +0200
        Re: debian version ID Pascal Hambourg <pascal@plouf.fr.eu.org> - 2016-08-09 13:40 +0200
          Re: debian version ID Seeker <seeker5528@comcast.net> - 2016-08-09 22:40 +0200
            Re: debian version ID David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2016-08-10 02:00 +0200
              Re: debian version ID Pascal Hambourg <pascal@plouf.fr.eu.org> - 2016-08-10 14:40 +0200
                Re: debian version ID David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2016-08-11 17:10 +0200
          debian version ID Jonathan de Boyne Pollard <J.deBoynePollard-newsgroups@NTLWorld.com> - 2016-08-29 13:50 +0200
            Re: debian version ID "Andrew M.A. Cater" <amacater@galactic.demon.co.uk> - 2016-08-29 20:30 +0200
              Re: debian version ID "Andrew M.A. Cater" <amacater@galactic.demon.co.uk> - 2016-08-29 21:50 +0200
                Re: debian version ID Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2016-08-30 00:40 +0200
    Re: debian version ID David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2016-08-01 16:40 +0200

#170605 — debian version ID

Will someone please explain (or point to, since it's not in release notes), why:

1: /etc/os-release (in Jessie at least) does not include the point release 
version as represented by /etc/debian_version

2: 8.5 (as installed here on host gx62b) is not using the (LTS) 4.4 kernel
-- 
"The wise are known for their understanding, and pleasant
words are persuasive." Proverbs 16:21 (New Living Translation)

  Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 ** a11y rocks!

Felix Miata  ***  http://fm.no-ip.com/

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#170606

Felix Miata <mrmazda@earthlink.net> writes:

> Will someone please explain (or point to, since it's not in release
> notes), why:
>
> 1: /etc/os-release (in Jessie at least) does not include the point
> release version as represented by /etc/debian_version

The proximate explanation is: Because the API for that file is
different. It describes the stable release for its whole lifetime, not
the updates made since that version of Debian was released.

A related question might be: Where is the canonical location of the
version string that *includes* the update (e.g. “8.5”)? I don't know
whether such a thing exists.

> 2: 8.5 (as installed here on host gx62b) is not using the (LTS) 4.4
> kernel

I expect the reason is: Because at the time Jessie was frozen, Linux 4.4
was not released. An update to Jessie is made only to fix bugs, not to
gain new releases of packages.

So the question instead is: Why would the general policy of “don't
upgrade a package to a new version” for Debian stable releases, have an
exception for this package?

-- 
 \            “Choose mnemonic identifiers. If you can't remember what |
  `\                mnemonic means, you've got a problem.” —Larry Wall |
_o__)                                                                  |
Ben Finney

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#170610

Ben Finney composed on 2016-08-01 03:20 (UTC-0400):

> Felix Miata wrote:

>> Will someone please explain (or point to, since it's not in release
>> notes), why:

>> 1: /etc/os-release (in Jessie at least) does not include the point
>> release version as represented by /etc/debian_version

> The proximate explanation is: Because the API for that file is
> different. It describes the stable release for its whole lifetime, not
> the updates made since that version of Debian was released.

Given the many possible options[1] for that file's content, one would think 
there would be a way to get the extra detail in, maybe VERSION_ID=8 and 
VERSION="8.5 (Jessie)", or move "Jessie" to VERSION_CODENAME and put 8.5 as 
VERSION.

> A related question might be: Where is the canonical location of the
> version string that *includes* the update (e.g. “8.5”)? I don't know
> whether such a thing exists.

>> 2: 8.5 (as installed here on host gx62b) is not using the (LTS) 4.4
>> kernel

> I expect the reason is: Because at the time Jessie was frozen, Linux 4.4
> was not released. An update to Jessie is made only to fix bugs, not to
> gain new releases of packages.

The question was a huge bungle. I was off by a year, thinking that Jessie 
somehow had managed to get all the way from 8.0 to 8.5 since the more recent 
January's LTS kernel 4.4. :-p

> So the question instead is: Why would the general policy of “don't
> upgrade a package to a new version” for Debian stable releases, have an
> exception for this package?

[1] https://www.freedesktop.org/software/systemd/man/os-release.html
-- 
"The wise are known for their understanding, and pleasant
words are persuasive." Proverbs 16:21 (New Living Translation)

  Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 ** a11y rocks!

Felix Miata  ***  http://fm.no-ip.com/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#170611

Felix Miata <mrmazda@earthlink.net> writes:

> Given the many possible options[1] for that file's content, one would
> think there would be a way to get the extra detail in, maybe
> VERSION_ID=8 and VERSION="8.5 (Jessie)", or move "Jessie" to
> VERSION_CODENAME and put 8.5 as VERSION.

I don't understand what you're asking, then.

Are you claiming the current content of the file violates that standard?
If so, a bug report would be appropriate.

If not, are you asking about counter-factual “why wasn't it done some
other way”?

An obvious answer is “because choosing some particular single way
necessarily means the other ways are not chosen”. But you seem to be
wanting some non-obvious answer different from that.

-- 
 \         “We demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!” |
  `\    —Vroomfondel, _The Hitch-Hiker's Guide To The Galaxy_, Douglas |
_o__)                                                            Adams |
Ben Finney

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#170607

On Mon, Aug 01, 2016 at 02:56:54AM -0400, Felix Miata wrote:
> Will someone please explain (or point to, since it's not in release notes), why:
> 
> 1: /etc/os-release (in Jessie at least) does not include the point release
> version as represented by /etc/debian_version
> 

/etc/os-release just contains major version - the absolute need for minor version is small.
(point releases do not now introduce major changes - the numbering policy changed around Debian 7 IIRC.)
Point releases are, after all, only a convenient way of gathering up security and minor fixes - if you do
an apt-get update or similar regularly then you move up through the point releases anyway, if you install from
say, 8.0 netboot media, then the installation process itself updates you. If you were to install from 8.0 media
alone then the first apt-get update / apt-get full-upgrade once connected to the network would bring you to 8.5


> 2: 8.5 (as installed here on host gx62b) is not using the (LTS) 4.4 kernel

At the time when Jessie was released, the 4.4 kernel wasn't quite stable, I think. If you use Jessie backports
you get 4.6 otherwise you get 3.16. That's the trade off between unconditionally stable with lots of testing
and security support and the pace of software development outside.

All best,

AndyC
> -- 
> Felix Miata  ***  http://fm.no-ip.com/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#170871

Andrew M.A. Cater:
> /etc/os-release just contains major version

You are going to have to explain that to its manual page, which gives 
VERSION_ID=11.04 as an example of what can be in the file.

You're going to have to explain it to the Ubuntu people, as well; 
because they follow what the manual says.  (-:

In reality, /etc/os-release can contain both major and minor versions, 
and does on Ubuntu, OpenSUSE, and so forth.  Why it does not on Debian 
is not something that is imposed by the file format.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#170872

Le 09/08/2016 à 10:44, Jonathan de Boyne Pollard a écrit :
> Andrew M.A. Cater:
>> /etc/os-release just contains major version
>
> You are going to have to explain that to its manual page, which gives
> VERSION_ID=11.04 as an example of what can be in the file.

This is obviously not a Debian version. Rather looks like Ubuntu.

> You're going to have to explain it to the Ubuntu people, as well;
> because they follow what the manual says.

Ubuntu 11.04 is a version based on year+month of release rather than a 
major+minor version. Ubuntu 11.04 is as different from 11.10 as 11.10 is 
different from 12.04.

Debian uses a different scheme without a minor version number.
The point release is not part of the Debian version.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#170887

On 8/9/2016 4:34 AM, Pascal Hambourg wrote:
> Le 09/08/2016 à 10:44, Jonathan de Boyne Pollard a écrit :
>> Andrew M.A. Cater:
>>> /etc/os-release just contains major version
>>
>> You are going to have to explain that to its manual page, which gives
>> VERSION_ID=11.04 as an example of what can be in the file.
>
> This is obviously not a Debian version. Rather looks like Ubuntu.
>
>> You're going to have to explain it to the Ubuntu people, as well;
>> because they follow what the manual says.
>
> Ubuntu 11.04 is a version based on year+month of release rather than a 
> major+minor version. Ubuntu 11.04 is as different from 11.10 as 11.10 
> is different from 12.04.
>
That was my first thought too, but looking up base-files for one of the 
LTS releases on packages.ubuntu.com and reading
the change log, looks like to do update the os-release with xx.xx.1, 
xx.xx.2, etc...

Later, Seeker

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#170895

On Tue 09 Aug 2016 at 13:27:34 (-0700), Seeker wrote:
> On 8/9/2016 4:34 AM, Pascal Hambourg wrote:
> >Le 09/08/2016 à 10:44, Jonathan de Boyne Pollard a écrit :
> >>Andrew M.A. Cater:
> >>>/etc/os-release just contains major version
> >>
> >>You are going to have to explain that to its manual page, which gives
> >>VERSION_ID=11.04 as an example of what can be in the file.
> >
> >This is obviously not a Debian version. Rather looks like Ubuntu.
> >
> >>You're going to have to explain it to the Ubuntu people, as well;
> >>because they follow what the manual says.
> >
> >Ubuntu 11.04 is a version based on year+month of release rather
> >than a major+minor version. Ubuntu 11.04 is as different from
> >11.10 as 11.10 is different from 12.04.
> >
> That was my first thought too, but looking up base-files for one of
> the LTS releases on packages.ubuntu.com and reading
> the change log, looks like to do update the os-release with xx.xx.1,
> xx.xx.2, etc...

Where was that, then? (To save us all having to search for it.)

When you say "update the os-release with xx.xx.1", do you
mean the VERSION_ID line? This line is optional anyway,
is it not?

Cheers,
David.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#170920

Le 10/08/2016 à 03:02, Seeker a écrit :
>
> On 8/9/2016 4:49 PM, David Wright wrote:
>> On Tue 09 Aug 2016 at 13:27:34 (-0700), Seeker wrote:
>>>
>>> That was my first thought too, but looking up base-files for one of
>>> the LTS releases on packages.ubuntu.com and reading
>>> the change log, looks like to do update the os-release with xx.xx.1,
>>> xx.xx.2, etc...
>>
>> Where was that, then? (To save us all having to search for it.)
>>
>> When you say "update the os-release with xx.xx.1", do you
>> mean the VERSION_ID line? This line is optional anyway,
>> is it not?
>
> http://changelogs.ubuntu.com/changelogs/pool/main/b/base-files/base-files_7.2ubuntu5.5/changelog
>
> "base-files (7.2ubuntu5.5) trusty; urgency=medium
>
>   * /etc/issue, /etc/issue.net, /etc/lsb-release, /etc/os-release: Bump
>     version number to 14.04.5 in preparation for the point release.

I downloaded the package from 
<http://packages.ubuntu.com/trusty-updates/base-files> and extracted the 
files.

/etc/os-release :

NAME="Ubuntu"
VERSION="14.04.5 LTS, Trusty Tahr"
ID=ubuntu
ID_LIKE=debian
PRETTY_NAME="Ubuntu 14.04.5 LTS"
VERSION_ID="14.04"
HOME_URL="http://www.ubuntu.com/"
SUPPORT_URL="http://help.ubuntu.com/"
BUG_REPORT_URL="http://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/"

/etc/lsb-release :

DISTRIB_ID=Ubuntu
DISTRIB_RELEASE=14.04
DISTRIB_CODENAME=trusty
DISTRIB_DESCRIPTION="Ubuntu 14.04.5 LTS"

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#170967

On Wed 10 Aug 2016 at 14:31:29 (+0200), Pascal Hambourg wrote:
> Le 10/08/2016 à 03:02, Seeker a écrit :
> >
> >On 8/9/2016 4:49 PM, David Wright wrote:
> >>On Tue 09 Aug 2016 at 13:27:34 (-0700), Seeker wrote:
> >>>
> >>>That was my first thought too, but looking up base-files for one of
> >>>the LTS releases on packages.ubuntu.com and reading
> >>>the change log, looks like to do update the os-release with xx.xx.1,
> >>>xx.xx.2, etc...
> >>
> >>Where was that, then? (To save us all having to search for it.)
> >>
> >>When you say "update the os-release with xx.xx.1", do you
> >>mean the VERSION_ID line? This line is optional anyway,
> >>is it not?
> >
> >http://changelogs.ubuntu.com/changelogs/pool/main/b/base-files/base-files_7.2ubuntu5.5/changelog
> >
> >"base-files (7.2ubuntu5.5) trusty; urgency=medium
> >
> >  * /etc/issue, /etc/issue.net, /etc/lsb-release, /etc/os-release: Bump
> >    version number to 14.04.5 in preparation for the point release.
> 
> I downloaded the package from
> <http://packages.ubuntu.com/trusty-updates/base-files> and extracted
> the files.
> 
> /etc/os-release :
> 
> NAME="Ubuntu"
> VERSION="14.04.5 LTS, Trusty Tahr"
> ID=ubuntu
> ID_LIKE=debian
> PRETTY_NAME="Ubuntu 14.04.5 LTS"
> VERSION_ID="14.04"
> HOME_URL="http://www.ubuntu.com/"
> SUPPORT_URL="http://help.ubuntu.com/"
> BUG_REPORT_URL="http://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/"
> 
> /etc/lsb-release :
> 
> DISTRIB_ID=Ubuntu
> DISTRIB_RELEASE=14.04
> DISTRIB_CODENAME=trusty
> DISTRIB_DESCRIPTION="Ubuntu 14.04.5 LTS"

/etc/debian_version :

jessie/sid

which is what one might expect: that's the Debian version that this
ubuntu release is based on. (Putting the Debian point-release here
would be meaningless.)

But ubuntu does not employ a /etc/ubuntu_version file, so os-release
and lsb-release are reasonable alternative locations for indicating
their point-release.

Regardless, I can't see any error in the quotation of Andrew M.A. Cater
that was made by Jonathan de Boyne Pollard (who seemed to be putting
words into his mouth).

-rw-r--r-- 105 Aug  1 08:48 /tmp/base-files_7.2ubuntu5.5_i386/etc/lsb-release
-rw-r--r-- 267 Feb 19  2014 /tmp/base-files_7.2ubuntu5.5_i386/etc/legal
-rw-r--r-- 26 Aug  1 09:04 /tmp/base-files_7.2ubuntu5.5_i386/etc/issue
-rw-r--r-- 19 Aug  1 09:04 /tmp/base-files_7.2ubuntu5.5_i386/etc/issue.net
-rw-r--r-- 11 Feb 19  2014 /tmp/base-files_7.2ubuntu5.5_i386/etc/debian_version
-rw-r--r-- 249 Aug  1 09:04 /tmp/base-files_7.2ubuntu5.5_i386/etc/os-release
-rw-r--r-- 82 Feb 19  2014 /tmp/base-files_7.2ubuntu5.5_i386/etc/dpkg/origins/debian
-rw-r--r-- 114 Feb 19  2014 /tmp/base-files_7.2ubuntu5.5_i386/etc/dpkg/origins/ubuntu
-rw-r--r-- 92 Feb 19  2014 /tmp/base-files_7.2ubuntu5.5_i386/etc/host.conf

Cheers,
David.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#171516

Felix Miata:

> Will someone please explain (or point to, since it's not in release 
> notes), why:
> 1: /etc/os-release (in Jessie at least) does not include the point 
> release version as represented by /etc/debian_version

Andrew M.A. Cater:

> /etc/os-release just contains major version - the absolute need for 
> minor version is small.

Jonathan de Boyne Pollard:

> You are going to have to explain that to its manual page, which gives 
> VERSION_ID=11.04 as an example of what can be in the file.

Pascal Hambourg:

> This is obviously not a Debian version. Rather looks like Ubuntu.

That is irrelevant.  M. Miata asked for a reason.  M. Cater responded.  
Either M. Cater is responding to explain why or xe is not explainining 
but merely repeating what M. Miata already knows and wants to know the 
reason for.  As an explanation why, it is clearly wrong, from simply 
reading the user manual.  What the version number in the manual might be 
is simply irrelevant.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#171534

On Mon, Aug 29, 2016 at 12:27:31PM +0100, Jonathan de Boyne Pollard wrote:
> Felix Miata:
> 
> >Will someone please explain (or point to, since it's not in release
> >notes), why:
> >1: /etc/os-release (in Jessie at least) does not include the point release
> >version as represented by /etc/debian_version
> 
> Andrew M.A. Cater:
> 
> >/etc/os-release just contains major version - the absolute need for minor
> >version is small.
> 
> Jonathan de Boyne Pollard:
> 
> >You are going to have to explain that to its manual page, which gives
> >VERSION_ID=11.04 as an example of what can be in the file.
> 
> Pascal Hambourg:
> 
> >This is obviously not a Debian version. Rather looks like Ubuntu.
> 
> That is irrelevant.  M. Miata asked for a reason.  M. Cater responded.
> Either M. Cater is responding to explain why or xe is not explainining but
> merely repeating what M. Miata already knows and wants to know the reason
> for.  As an explanation why, it is clearly wrong, from simply reading the
> user manual.  What the version number in the manual might be is simply
> irrelevant.

What part of the man pages are you finding hard to read: it's worth noting that much of this is optional

The below is the version from Debian Jessie [/etc/os-release is a symlink to/from /usr/lib/os-release]

PRETTY_NAME="Debian GNU/Linux 8 (jessie)"
NAME="Debian GNU/Linux"
VERSION_ID="8"
VERSION="8 (jessie)"
ID=debian
HOME_URL="http://www.debian.org/"
SUPPORT_URL="http://www.debian.org/support"
BUG_REPORT_URL="https://bugs.debian.org/"

PRETTY_NAME is a name in a format suitable for presentation to the user. May (or may not) contain a release name or OS version of some kind. If it's not set,
the default is Linux.
NAME identifies the operating system without a version component
VERSION_ID  is a lower case string, mostly numeric identifyng the OS version for use by scripts. Optional. 
[The examples given in the manpage are for Fedora and Ubuntu releases. NOTE: These are examples and are not canonical since the whole field is optional.]
VERSION identifies the OS version, possibly including a code name
ID is a lower case identifier identifying the OS suitable for use in scripts
HOME_URL, SUPPORT_URL and BUG_REPORT_URL are all optional: intended for distributions providing community support and not all of these need be given.

I correctly pointed out that minor versions point releases have been of less relevance since prior to Debian 7 and the last time I can think of them as being very 
relevant indeed was prior to Debian 4.0

Debian isn't Ubuntu (or Red Hat Enterprise / CentOS / Fedora / OpenSUSE) ...

Please don't impute motive to me: please do go away and read and learn as much as you feel able to do before complaining about inconsistencies which aren't.
I would sinerely commend to you the Debian handbook - apt install debian-handbook will get you the PDF version: it is also worth springing for a paper version
to keep at the computer side. [Also, obviously, at https://www.debian.org/doc/user-manuals/#debian-handbook in HTML.]

Alternatively, others less charitable might recommend Eric Raymond's classic: How To Ask Questions The Smart Way www.catb.org/esr/faqs/smart-questions.html

With every good wish,

Andy C (Debian user since 1994 and Debian developer since 1995)

[amacater@debian.org]

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#171538

On Mon, Aug 29, 2016 at 06:27:39PM +0000, Andrew M.A. Cater wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 29, 2016 at 12:27:31PM +0100, Jonathan de Boyne Pollard wrote:
> > Felix Miata:
> > 
> > >Will someone please explain (or point to, since it's not in release
> > >notes), why:
> > >1: /etc/os-release (in Jessie at least) does not include the point release
> > >version as represented by /etc/debian_version
> > 
> > Andrew M.A. Cater:
> > 
> > >/etc/os-release just contains major version - the absolute need for minor
> > >version is small.
> > 
> > Jonathan de Boyne Pollard:
> > 
> > >You are going to have to explain that to its manual page, which gives
> > >VERSION_ID=11.04 as an example of what can be in the file.
> > 
> > Pascal Hambourg:
> > 
> > >This is obviously not a Debian version. Rather looks like Ubuntu.
> > 
> > That is irrelevant.  M. Miata asked for a reason.  M. Cater responded.
> > Either M. Cater is responding to explain why or xe is not explainining but
> > merely repeating what M. Miata already knows and wants to know the reason
> > for.  As an explanation why, it is clearly wrong, from simply reading the
> > user manual.  What the version number in the manual might be is simply
> > irrelevant.
> 
> What part of the man pages are you finding hard to read: it's worth noting that much of this is optional
> 
> The below is the version from Debian Jessie [/etc/os-release is a symlink to/from /usr/lib/os-release]
> 
> PRETTY_NAME="Debian GNU/Linux 8 (jessie)"
> NAME="Debian GNU/Linux"
> VERSION_ID="8"
> VERSION="8 (jessie)"
> ID=debian
> HOME_URL="http://www.debian.org/"
> SUPPORT_URL="http://www.debian.org/support"
> BUG_REPORT_URL="https://bugs.debian.org/"
> 
> PRETTY_NAME is a name in a format suitable for presentation to the user. May (or may not) contain a release name or OS version of some kind. If it's not set,
> the default is Linux.
> NAME identifies the operating system without a version component
> VERSION_ID  is a lower case string, mostly numeric identifyng the OS version for use by scripts. Optional. 
> [The examples given in the manpage are for Fedora and Ubuntu releases. NOTE: These are examples and are not canonical since the whole field is optional.]
> VERSION identifies the OS version, possibly including a code name
> ID is a lower case identifier identifying the OS suitable for use in scripts
> HOME_URL, SUPPORT_URL and BUG_REPORT_URL are all optional: intended for distributions providing community support and not all of these need be given.
> 
> I correctly pointed out that minor versions point releases have been of less relevance since prior to Debian 7 and the last time I can think of them as being very 
> relevant indeed was prior to Debian 4.0
> 
> Debian isn't Ubuntu (or Red Hat Enterprise / CentOS / Fedora / OpenSUSE) ...
> 
> Please don't impute motive to me: please do go away and read and learn as much as you feel able to do before complaining about inconsistencies which aren't.
> I would sinerely commend to you the Debian handbook - apt install debian-handbook will get you the PDF version: it is also worth springing for a paper version
> to keep at the computer side. [Also, obviously, at https://www.debian.org/doc/user-manuals/#debian-handbook in HTML.]
> 
> Alternatively, others less charitable might recommend Eric Raymond's classic: How To Ask Questions The Smart Way www.catb.org/esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
> 
> With every good wish,
> 
> Andy C (Debian user since 1994 and Debian developer since 1995)
> 
> [amacater@debian.org]

Following up to myself (since I hadn't really bothered previously with /etc/debian_version which has, roughly, the same function as /etc/release on Red Hat) and thereby 
accidentally answering the original question asked by ?? Felix ?? Miata:

The OS portable version of OS identification is /usr/lib/os-release or /etc/os-release as outlined above. /etc/debian_version coincidentally adds the minor
release - it doesn't have a man page so I can't check why.

It appears that Ubuntu (mis)uses /etc/debian_version to point out the version of Debian from which Ubuntu point releases derive their basis.

Ubuntu releases typically take Debian testing at some point, spend a few months cleaning it up to their satisfaction - perhaps adding packages from 
Debian unstable (always, canonically, Sid) - and then release.

There is a mapping at http://askubuntu.com/questons/445487/which-ubuntu-version-is-equivalent-to-debian-squeeze if this will help anyone, but, as the question
answer points out there may be no feasible exact mapping.

Hope this helps someone at some tme

All the very best,

Andy C

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#171541

On Monday 29 August 2016 20:45:21 Andrew M.A. Cater wrote:
> /etc/debian_version coincidentally adds the minor
> release

Whatever the reason, it is very helpful to some of us that it does so, so long 
may it continue to do so!! :-)

Thank you for the helpful explanation, Andrew.

Lisi

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#170615

On Mon 01 Aug 2016 at 02:56:54 (-0400), Felix Miata wrote:
> Will someone please explain (or point to, since it's not in release notes), why:
> 
> 1: /etc/os-release (in Jessie at least) does not include the point
> release version as represented by /etc/debian_version

/etc/os-release is an outward-facing file designed for programs to
find out what distribution of linux is running here. As far as they
are concerned, each Debian version is a rolling release so the point
number is meaningless. Why would you want it?

/etc/debian_version is an inward-facing file for system administrators
and installers. Really, it only interests the latter because even the
point versions are rolling releases between points.

If you're installing a new system, the point release will at least
tell you whether it's worth downloading a new d-i iso or if you've
got the latest there is. Not much more.

If you need Debian 7, it's easy enough to install it. If you think you
need Debian 7.3, you're probably going to have trouble working out just
what versions of all the packages were available on December 14th, 2013.

Cheers,
David.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.debian.user

csiph-web