* How to update os-release information
@ 2021-01-19 7:49 Silvano Cirujano Cuesta
2021-01-19 8:02 ` Silvano Cirujano Cuesta
0 siblings, 1 reply; 2+ messages in thread
From: Silvano Cirujano Cuesta @ 2021-01-19 7:49 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: isar-users
Hi,
as reported [1], the current code (function "update_etc_os_release" in "meta/classes/image-postproc-extension.bbclass") is changing /etc/os-release in a wrong way... Now the question is, which is the right way?
In some internal discussions I've realized that the approach that I'm proposing is technically Ok, but doesn't appear to be the common one. Debian-derived distros strongly changing vanilla Debian (e.g. Ubuntu and Purism) are creating their own "base-files" packages containing their information. I'd propose contacting upstream Debian [2] to find out which is the best approach and why.
Regards,
Silvano
[1] https://groups.google.com/g/isar-users/c/Jr3bTPumH-w
[2] https://lists.debian.org/debian-derivatives/
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread
* Re: How to update os-release information
2021-01-19 7:49 How to update os-release information Silvano Cirujano Cuesta
@ 2021-01-19 8:02 ` Silvano Cirujano Cuesta
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2+ messages in thread
From: Silvano Cirujano Cuesta @ 2021-01-19 8:02 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: isar-users
BTW, according the Debian Derivatives Guidelines [3] the list of files to modify for de-/re-branding are:
/etc/issue
/etc/issue.net
/etc/dpkg/origins/default (symlink to distribution information file)
/etc/os-release (symlink to /usr/lib/os-release)
/usr/lib/os-release
/usr/share/base-files/motd
No matter how, we should probably provide recipes for supporting the whole de-/re-branding, not only /etc/os-release, right?
Silvano
[3] https://wiki.debian.org/Derivatives/Guidelines#De-.2FRe-branding
On 19/01/2021 08:49, [ext] Silvano Cirujano Cuesta wrote:
> Hi,
>
> as reported [1], the current code (function "update_etc_os_release" in "meta/classes/image-postproc-extension.bbclass") is changing /etc/os-release in a wrong way... Now the question is, which is the right way?
>
> In some internal discussions I've realized that the approach that I'm proposing is technically Ok, but doesn't appear to be the common one. Debian-derived distros strongly changing vanilla Debian (e.g. Ubuntu and Purism) are creating their own "base-files" packages containing their information. I'd propose contacting upstream Debian [2] to find out which is the best approach and why.
>
> Regards,
>
> Silvano
>
> [1] https://groups.google.com/g/isar-users/c/Jr3bTPumH-w
>
> [2] https://lists.debian.org/debian-derivatives/
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2021-01-19 8:02 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2021-01-19 7:49 How to update os-release information Silvano Cirujano Cuesta
2021-01-19 8:02 ` Silvano Cirujano Cuesta
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox