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

Groups > linux.debian.user > #196986 > unrolled thread

Re: Debian testing - release number

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

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: Debian testing - release number David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2018-06-28 06:50 +0200
    Re: Debian testing - release number Richard Hector <richard@walnut.gen.nz> - 2018-07-01 12:50 +0200
      Re: Debian testing - release number David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2018-07-01 19:40 +0200
        Re: Debian testing - release number John Crawley <john@bunsenlabs.org> - 2018-07-04 03:00 +0200
          Re: Debian testing - release number David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2018-07-04 17:20 +0200
            Re: Debian testing - release number Greg Wooledge <wooledg@eeg.ccf.org> - 2018-07-05 14:20 +0200
        Re: Debian testing - release number Richard Hector <richard@walnut.gen.nz> - 2018-07-04 03:20 +0200
          Re: Debian testing - release number David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2018-07-04 18:00 +0200
            Re: Debian testing - release number Richard Hector <richard@walnut.gen.nz> - 2018-07-05 03:00 +0200
              Re: Debian testing - release number John Crawley <john@bunsenlabs.org> - 2018-07-05 04:20 +0200
              Re: Debian testing - release number Curt <curty@free.fr> - 2018-07-05 12:20 +0200
                Re: Debian testing - release number Joe <joe@jretrading.com> - 2018-07-05 13:00 +0200
                  Re: Debian testing - release number Curt <curty@free.fr> - 2018-07-05 13:50 +0200
                  Re: Debian testing - release number David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2018-07-05 18:10 +0200
                    Re: Debian testing - release number Greg Wooledge <wooledg@eeg.ccf.org> - 2018-07-05 18:50 +0200
                      Re: Debian testing - release number David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2018-07-05 20:00 +0200
                        Re: Debian testing - release number Greg Wooledge <wooledg@eeg.ccf.org> - 2018-07-05 20:10 +0200
                          Re: Debian testing - release number Nicholas Geovanis <nickgeovanis@gmail.com> - 2018-07-05 22:00 +0200
                            Re: Debian testing - release number Greg Wooledge <wooledg@eeg.ccf.org> - 2018-07-05 22:20 +0200
                              Re: Debian testing - release number Nicholas Geovanis <nickgeovanis@gmail.com> - 2018-07-05 22:30 +0200
                                Re: Debian testing - release number Greg Wooledge <wooledg@eeg.ccf.org> - 2018-07-05 22:50 +0200
                                  Re: Debian testing - release number Nicholas Geovanis <nickgeovanis@gmail.com> - 2018-07-05 23:40 +0200
                                    Re: Debian testing - release number David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2018-07-06 02:10 +0200
                                    Re: Debian testing - release number The Wanderer <wanderer@fastmail.fm> - 2018-07-06 19:00 +0200
                                      Re: Debian testing - release number Curt <curty@free.fr> - 2018-07-06 20:10 +0200
                            Re: Debian testing - release number Joe <joe@jretrading.com> - 2018-07-05 22:40 +0200
                          Re: Debian testing - release number David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2018-07-06 02:20 +0200
                            Re: Debian testing - release number Curt <curty@free.fr> - 2018-07-06 10:50 +0200
                              Re: Debian testing - release number Greg Wooledge <wooledg@eeg.ccf.org> - 2018-07-06 14:10 +0200
                                Re: Debian testing - release number Curt <curty@free.fr> - 2018-07-06 15:10 +0200
                                  Re: Debian testing - release number davidson <davidson@freevolt.org> - 2018-07-07 06:10 +0200
                                    Re: Debian testing - release number Curt <curty@free.fr> - 2018-07-07 10:00 +0200
                                      Re: Debian testing - release number Greg Wooledge <wooledg@eeg.ccf.org> - 2018-07-09 15:00 +0200
                                        Re: Debian testing - release number Curt <curty@free.fr> - 2018-07-09 17:30 +0200
                              Re: Debian testing - release number David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2018-07-10 23:30 +0200
                                Re: Debian testing - release number Curt <curty@free.fr> - 2018-07-11 14:00 +0200
                                  Re: Debian testing - release number David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2018-07-13 21:20 +0200
              Re: Debian testing - release number David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2018-07-05 16:50 +0200

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

#197245

On Thu, Jul 05, 2018 at 03:27:44PM -0500, Nicholas Geovanis wrote:
> (1) You foolishly relied on the value in /etc/debian_version when

It is not a fucking configuration file that you edit.

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.

It would be like editing registry entries in Microsoft Windows to make
it look like you're running a different version of Windows.

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

#197247

On Thu, Jul 5, 2018 at 3:46 PM Greg Wooledge <wooledg@eeg.ccf.org> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jul 05, 2018 at 03:27:44PM -0500, Nicholas Geovanis wrote:
> > (1) You foolishly relied on the value in /etc/debian_version when
>
> It is not a fucking configuration file that you edit.
> 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.
> It would be like editing registry entries in Microsoft Windows to make
> it look like you're running a different version of Windows.

All perfectly correct, valid statements in my view Greg.
But that wasn't my question.
Question: What is the correct tool to TELL you what Debian version you
are running?
Mr. Armstrong suggests that dpkg is a better choice and that sounds better than
the apt-related commands. But Joe A followed up with:
"But it's odd that you're the first to point out (indirectly) that
knowing the version of Debian isn't that useful."
I did no such thing. I think it's very useful. But what I'm trying to
point out here
is that there seems to be no such canonical (sic) Debian tool which CAN tell me
what release and version I'm running. Otherwise the answer from Joe Armstrong
would have been more like "run command XYZ which tells you version=3.4.5".
So there doesn't seem to be such a tool. That was my point.
Now we know that the answer "look at /etc/debian_version" is the wrong answer.
So again: What is the correct, intended, standard Debian tool which tells me
the installed, running Debian release and version number?

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

#197251

On Thu 05 Jul 2018 at 16:29:30 (-0500), Nicholas Geovanis wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 5, 2018 at 3:46 PM Greg Wooledge <wooledg@eeg.ccf.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Jul 05, 2018 at 03:27:44PM -0500, Nicholas Geovanis wrote:
> > > (1) You foolishly relied on the value in /etc/debian_version when
> >
> > It is not a fucking configuration file that you edit.
> > 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.
> > It would be like editing registry entries in Microsoft Windows to make
> > it look like you're running a different version of Windows.
> 
> All perfectly correct, valid statements in my view Greg.
> But that wasn't my question.
> Question: What is the correct tool to TELL you what Debian version you
> are running?
> Mr. Armstrong suggests that dpkg is a better choice and that sounds better than
> the apt-related commands. But Joe A followed up with:
> "But it's odd that you're the first to point out (indirectly) that
> knowing the version of Debian isn't that useful."
> I did no such thing. I think it's very useful. But what I'm trying to
> point out here
> is that there seems to be no such canonical (sic) Debian tool which CAN tell me
> what release and version I'm running. Otherwise the answer from Joe Armstrong
> would have been more like "run command XYZ which tells you version=3.4.5".
> So there doesn't seem to be such a tool. That was my point.
> Now we know that the answer "look at /etc/debian_version" is the wrong answer.
> So again: What is the correct, intended, standard Debian tool which tells me
> the installed, running Debian release and version number?

Oh, that's easy. The intended one is /etc/os-release ± lsb_release
(command) if it's installed. Though a closer approach might be
/etc/apt/sources.list.

Cheers,
David.

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

#197288

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On 2018-07-05 at 17:29, Nicholas Geovanis wrote:

> But what I'm trying to point out here is that there seems to be no 
> such canonical (sic) Debian tool which CAN tell me what release and 
> version I'm running.

That's not true. /etc/debian_version, if not modified by the sysadmin,
should always tell you this.

However, it will not always tell you a number - because not every Debian
which you might be running *has* a version number.


According to (my understanding of what's been stated in) this thread,
testing has not been assigned a version number yet; by the time it gets
one, it is not testing anymore, it is stable.

Also, sid will - almost by definition - never have a version number.

What would the tool you're asking for provide in such cases, and where
is it supposed to get that information?

The answers which Debian appears to have arrived at are "the codename"
and "/etc/debian_version".

That means that, in such cases, the tool will not provide a number.

If you aren't willing to accept that result, you'll have to come up with
your own answer to those two questions.

-- 
   The Wanderer

The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one
persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all
progress depends on the unreasonable man.         -- George Bernard Shaw

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

#197290

On 2018-07-06, The Wanderer <wanderer@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
> On 2018-07-05 at 17:29, Nicholas Geovanis wrote:
>
>> But what I'm trying to point out here is that there seems to be no
>> such canonical (sic) Debian tool which CAN tell me what release and
>> version I'm running.
>
> That's not true. /etc/debian_version, if not modified by the sysadmin,
> should always tell you this.
>

/usr/share/doc/base-files/FAQ

Q. I upgraded my system to the testing distribution and now my
/etc/issue says "buster/sid". Should it not read "buster" or "testing"?

Q. I upgraded my system to the unstable distribution and now my
/etc/issue says "buster/sid". Should it not read "sid" or "unstable"?

A. That would be nice, but it is not possible because of the way the
testing distribution works. Packages uploaded for unstable reach
testing after ten days, provided they are built for every released
architecture, have no RC-bugs and their dependencies may be met in
testing. You should consider the testing and unstable distributions as
two sides of the same coin. Since the base-files package in testing
was initially uploaded for unstable, the only sensible /etc/issue to
have is one that is both valid for testing and unstable, hence
"buster/sid" (or whatever is appropriate).

Q. Ok, but how do I know which distribution I'm running?

A. If you are running testing or unstable, then /etc/debian_version is
not a reliable way to know that anymore. Looking at the contents of
your /etc/apt/sources.list file is probably a much better way.

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

#197244

On Thu, 5 Jul 2018 14:57:03 -0500
Nicholas Geovanis <nickgeovanis@gmail.com> wrote:

> I am rightly accused of relying too heavily on /etc/debian_version to
> detect my running release. But it seems clear
> to me that the "right", canonical way to detect this is to query the
> installed package base to extract a version/release
> number from a package name and/or version. So surely there is an
> "approved" tool for doing that. Hopefully OTHER THAN
> apt, aptitude, synaptic or apt-get; ideally simpler and easier to
> script than that.

I would expect dpkg to be a better bet than apt, as it's more primitive.
Manually, I use dpkg -l with a grep to find version numbers.

But it's odd that you're the first to point out (indirectly) that
knowing the version of Debian isn't that useful. This is *Debian*.
Quite a few users will have at least one backport or locally-compiled
package, and there will be a few people who have almost tamed a
frankendebian.

If your application depends on a particular version of a *package*,
then it makes sense to enquire which version of that package is
installed, not which version of Debian is running.

-- 
Joe

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

#197252

On Thu 05 Jul 2018 at 14:08:21 (-0400), Greg Wooledge wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 05, 2018 at 12:57:34PM -0500, David Wright wrote:
> > On Thu 05 Jul 2018 at 12:42:36 (-0400), Greg Wooledge wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jul 05, 2018 at 11:06:22AM -0500, David Wright wrote:
> > > > But if you're a sysadmin who has a script that wants/needs a version
> > > > *number* for any reason, then /etc/debian_version is the safest file
> > > > to modify.
> > > 
> > > I strongly disagree.  The safest file to modify would be the broken
> > > shell script that needs a "release number".
> > 
> > Would you explain what is unsafe about it and why /etc/debian_version
> > is a configuration file, or offer a sensible alternative.
> 
> 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.

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.

Cheers,
David.

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

#197266

On 2018-07-06, David Wright <deblis@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.

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 (because that's what Wooledge said that you're agreeing
with here)?

So, Joey Hess is a crazy idiot, for instance?

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:

> Cheers,
> David.
>
>

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

#197272

On Fri, Jul 06, 2018 at 08:41:58AM +0000, Curt wrote:
> So, Joey Hess is a crazy idiot, for instance?
> 
> https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=81249

That was written in 2001.  One hopes that he has learned something in
the 17 years since then.  I certainly have.

Reading along to the end of that bug report, it appears that Joey
Hess managed to convince the maintainers of base-files to mark
/etc/debian_version as a conffile.  This is still its state today --
I just checked it in base-files_9.9+deb9u4_amd64.deb.

>From this, I conclude that Joey Hess is a skilled manipulator.

That doesn't stop him from also being a crazy idiot, at least on this
particular issue.

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

#197275

On 2018-07-06, Greg Wooledge <wooledg@eeg.ccf.org> wrote:
>
>>From this, I conclude that Joey Hess is a skilled manipulator.
>

(I didn't say this.)

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

#197307

On Fri, 6 Jul 2018, Curt wrote:

> On 2018-07-06, Greg Wooledge <wooledg@eeg.ccf.org> wrote:
>>
>>> From this, I conclude that Joey Hess is a skilled manipulator.
>>
>
> (I didn't say this.)

Observation: That line begins with "From".

Speculation: I suspect that the listserv software escapes "From" after
a newline, and that its chosen escape is synonymous with the embedded
quote character.[1]

I'm pretty sure it did this when passing on a message of my own, here:

   https://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/alpine.DEB.2.10.1807011736220.15009@freevolt.org

In that message, the line-initial phrase "From the horse's mouth:" was
my own. I'm certain I didn't attribute it to anyone else, in the
message I sent to the list. But in the copy I received from the list,
and in the archives, it looks like I did.

Conclusion: If you're going to say anything really heinous on this
list, make sure to put it in a line that begins with the word "From".

And, whatever the facts, it was nice of Curt to co-author this verse
with Mr Guthrie:

This land is your land This land is my land
>From California to the New York island;
>From the red wood forest to the Gulf Stream waters
This land was made for you and Me.

NOTES

1. More discussion here, at the end of the second paragraph:

      The Jargon File Part I. Introduction
      Chapter 6. Email Quotes and Inclusion Conventions
      http://www.catb.org/jargon/html/email-style.html

-- 

>From my branded electronic device, this was sent.
   -- Yoda

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

#197309

On 2018-07-07, davidson <davidson@freevolt.org> wrote:
> On Fri, 6 Jul 2018, Curt wrote:
>
>> On 2018-07-06, Greg Wooledge <wooledg@eeg.ccf.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> From this, I conclude that Joey Hess is a skilled manipulator.
>>>
>>
>> (I didn't say this.)
>
> Observation: That line begins with "From".
>
> Speculation: I suspect that the listserv software escapes "From" after
> a newline, and that its chosen escape is synonymous with the embedded
> quote character.[1]
>
> I'm pretty sure it did this when passing on a message of my own, here:
>
>    https://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/alpine.DEB.2.10.1807011736220.15009@freevolt.org
>
> In that message, the line-initial phrase "From the horse's mouth:" was
> my own. I'm certain I didn't attribute it to anyone else, in the
> message I sent to the list. But in the copy I received from the list,
> and in the archives, it looks like I did.
>
> Conclusion: If you're going to say anything really heinous on this
> list, make sure to put it in a line that begins with the word "From".

The culprit is therefore Wooledge himself.

> And, whatever the facts, it was nice of Curt to co-author this verse
> with Mr Guthrie:
>
> This land is your land This land is my land
>>From California to the New York island;
>>From the red wood forest to the Gulf Stream waters
> This land was made for you and Me.

Looks like a convincing demonstration. Except in this case
I won't disclaim authorship.

> NOTES
>
> 1. More discussion here, at the end of the second paragraph:
>
>       The Jargon File Part I. Introduction
>       Chapter 6. Email Quotes and Inclusion Conventions
>       http://www.catb.org/jargon/html/email-style.html
>

>From this moment on,
You for me dear,
Only two for tea dear,
>From this moment on,

>From this happy day,
No more blue songs,
Only hoop-de-doo songs,
>From this moment on

Give my regards to Cole P. (though he's passed now these many years).

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

#197391

On Sat, Jul 07, 2018 at 07:55:26AM +0000, Curt wrote:
> On 2018-07-07, davidson <davidson@freevolt.org> wrote:
> > Speculation: I suspect that the listserv software escapes "From" after
> > a newline, and that its chosen escape is synonymous with the embedded
> > quote character.[1]

> The culprit is therefore Wooledge himself.

The culprit is "mbox". <http://jdebp.eu./FGA/mail-mbox-formats.html>

Because the 5-byte string "From " at the start of a line delimits new
messages in "mbox" formats, many mail systems will alter the body of a
message, placing ">" in front of leading "From " strings.  This happens
quite frequently.

As JDEBP writes on the web page cited above:

  The "mboxo" mailbox format uses irreversible "From quoting" that
  corrupts messages. Before a message is appended to a "mboxo" mailbox
  file, it is transformed. Any line of the message, in either the
  header or the body, that begins with the five characters 'F', 'r',
  'o', 'm', and ' ' has a single '>' character prepended to it. This
  transformation is irreversible because it is impossible to distinguish,
  when reading a message, a line that began '>From ' in the original
  message from a line that began 'From ' in the original message and
  that was subsequently transformed.

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

#197404

On 2018-07-09, Greg Wooledge <wooledg@eeg.ccf.org> wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 07, 2018 at 07:55:26AM +0000, Curt wrote:
>> On 2018-07-07, davidson <davidson@freevolt.org> wrote:
>> > Speculation: I suspect that the listserv software escapes "From" after
>> > a newline, and that its chosen escape is synonymous with the embedded
>> > quote character.[1]
>
>> The culprit is therefore Wooledge himself.
>
> The culprit is "mbox". <http://jdebp.eu./FGA/mail-mbox-formats.html>
>

I meant only that you were the author of the malicious comment.

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

#197464

On Fri 06 Jul 2018 at 08:41:58 (+0000), Curt wrote:
> On 2018-07-06, David Wright <deblis@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.

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

#197488

On 2018-07-10, David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> wrote:
 
You following up to Woolege:

 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, Dave, as to which of Woolege'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). 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.  

The Woolege post:

 It is not a fucking configuration file that you edit.

 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.

 It would be like editing registry entries in Microsoft Windows to make
 it look like you're running a different version of Windows.

Anyway, have a nice day.

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

#197608

On Wed 11 Jul 2018 at 11:53:29 (+0000), Curt wrote:
> On 2018-07-10, David Wright <deblis@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.xlgol2g2kuacekyw@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.

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

#197230

On Thu 05 Jul 2018 at 12:58:21 (+1200), Richard Hector wrote:
> On 05/07/18 03:53, David Wright wrote:
> > On Wed 04 Jul 2018 at 13:18:14 (+1200), Richard Hector wrote:
> >> On 02/07/18 05:31, David Wright wrote:
> >>> On Sun 01 Jul 2018 at 22:44:17 (+1200), Richard Hector wrote:
> >>>> On 28/06/18 16:40, David Wright wrote:
> >>>>> On Wed 27 Jun 2018 at 19:49:13 (+0200), Martin Krämer wrote:
> >>>>>> I am wondering if it is possible to get the debian release number
> >>>>>> for debian testing (and maybe sid) from command line?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Yes.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> # cat > /etc/debian_version
> >>>>> Write whatever you want here
> >>>>> ^D
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Job done. (That's a control-D.)
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Whether it's advisable to depend on its being numerical is a different matter.
> >>>>
> >>>> Wait, what? Are you trying to get it, or set it? Why would you want to
> >>>> edit that?
> >>>
> >>> As Brad has already pointed out, "[…] [testing] will get the official
> >>> release number 10 when buster becomes the stable branch of Debian."
> >>> That's been policy AIUI at least since Debian 1.0 was not released.
> >>> Meanwhile this question is asked, answered, and (re)submitted as a bug.
> >>>
> >>> 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.
> >>
> >> I accept that you _can_ edit it. I just don't see why you'd want to,
> > 
> > I can only refer you to a recent iteration of bug reporting:
> > 
> > https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=866885
> > 
> >> especially in terms of the OP's request to find out what the version
> >> number is. If the file has the version number, fine. If not, changing
> >> the file still isn't going to help.
> > 
> > Eh? If the OP wants a version number, then changing the string to a
> > number will help.
> 
> Equally, if I want to know what the time is, I can ask you.
> If you don't know, I can tell you.
> Then I can ask you, and now you'll know, and I'll find out.
> 
> Right?

That's a false analogy. For the time of day, there's only one correct
answer. When software interrogates the clock to find out what the
time is, it's an error for the clock to respond with a different time.

> We must be looking at different problems.
> 
> I'm assuming that if you're trying to look up the version number, it's
> because you don't know what it is.

The *software* that makes the enquiry doesn't know the version number,
so it reads debian_version to find out. On my systems (and most
others) the string in debian_version was chosen by the Debian release
managers in line with Debian policy.

If you've used Debian a long time, you'll know that there were nine
releases before Debian settled on increasing the version number by 1
for each release. (And if you've used TeX, you'll be familiar with
the version number approaching π from below by appending a digit.)

IOW the string is arbitrary. A sysadmin could override the release
managers' choice, and decide to add one to the version number every
time   apt-get upgrade   made any change to the package list. Seems
logical: each upgrade produces a different version of the system.

Cheers,
David.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

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

csiph-web