Bug#1077764: Ruling request on os-release specification implementation

On Tue, 6 Aug 2024 17:55:23 +0200 Wouter Verhelst <[email protected]> wrote:
> - Gioele's message is about reimplementing lsb_release in terms of
>   os-release.

Not really. lsb_release has already been reimplemented purely in terms 
of os-release since bookworm. Even the older Python version used 
os-release as the main source of truth, if available.

> Surely the reason that os-release exists is not "so
>   we have a way to implement the lsb_release script".

Not "the" reason, but one of the reasons. lsb_release is explicit 
referred to in the FAQs: http://0pointer.de/blog/projects/os-release

> In fact, if that
>   were the only reason, then we could do away with os-release entirely,
>   implement lsb_release for Debian in terms of parsing apt
>   configuration, and we wouldn't even be having this discussion.

This is what I would like to highlight:

The status quo until Debian 11 was that users of Debian were be able to 
_distinguish_ between "testing" and "unstable". [1]

That ability was however provided by lsb_release instead of base-files.

This ability of lsb_release to tell "testing" apart from "unstable" 
(often with wrong results, see the amount of bug reports) was used by 
many users and applications. (And I know because of the bug reports I 
received once lsb_release started being Provided by 
src:lsb-release-minimal).

My opinion is that lsb_release should not be in the business of guessing 
if a OS is "testing" or "unstable". Self-identification is a task of the 
OS itself.

Another opinion of mine is that LSB and lsb_release are legacy 
interfaces not suited for the modern world. This is also the opinion of 
Debian since Debian 9 (stretch, 2015, [2]).

So the modern place where to implement the distinction that was there 
before Debian 12, is the current cross-distro facility /usr/lib/os-release.


[1] https://bugs.debian.org/1038383#10

[2] 
<https://www.debian.org/releases/stretch/amd64/release-notes.en.txt>, 
section 5.1.6

--
Gioele Barabucci