Bug#703677: lsb-release is not derivative friendly

Hi,

On Fri, 22 Mar 2013, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote:
> > No LSB modules are available.
> > Distributor ID:	Debian
> > Description:	Debian GNU/Linux Kali Linux 1.0
> > Release:	Kali Linux 1.0
> > Codename:	n/a
> 
> You're saying that the wrong line is "Distributor ID" (the output of 
> lsb_release -i), right ?

Yes, but description looks wrong too. It could use the PRETTY_NAME from
/etc/os-release instead of making up something weird.

> > 3/ /etc/dpkg/origins/default if none of the above exist
> > 4/ some wild guess based on APT otherwise
> > 
> > Please let me know if you need help.
> 
> From what I can see in the code, the current logic is the following:
> 1/ /etc/lsb-release - get_lsb_information()
> 2/ 'Debian' - guess_debian_release()

Yes.

> That said, /etc/os-release is not used anywhere in lsb(-release) yet, so I'm 

/etc/os-release has been promoted as a vendor-neutral file on which
we should standardize. I believe it would be a good idea to use it.

> open to implement "3/ /etc/dpkg/origins/default" parsing for now, but would 
> rather avoid parsing os-release only for ID (but help is welcome). Also, I'm 
> yet to see an advantage for apt parsing where dpkg origins are already 
> supposed to provide the correct information (as derivatives are supposed to 
> fork base-files anyway).

I also don't see the value on the APT parsing but I saw code for this so I
left it in my list.

> I'll see if I can get a patch for "3/ /etc/dpkg/origins/default" parsing soon, 
> but I welcome help there too.

reportbug has some python code parsing that file in
/usr/share/pyshared/reportbug/debbugs.py

Cheers,
-- 
Raphaël Hertzog ◈ Debian Developer

Get the Debian Administrator's Handbook:
→ http://debian-handbook.info/get/


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/[email protected]