From 0b795e2b8ba22e8e47ecaad5fea3dadaff506ae1 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Daniel Baumann Date: Sun, 7 Apr 2024 10:23:42 +0200 Subject: Adding debian version 12.4+deb12u5. Signed-off-by: Daniel Baumann --- debian/README | 99 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 99 insertions(+) create mode 100644 debian/README (limited to 'debian/README') diff --git a/debian/README b/debian/README new file mode 100644 index 0000000..9ced2ea --- /dev/null +++ b/debian/README @@ -0,0 +1,99 @@ +Frequently Asked Questions about base-files +=========================================== + +* Questions about /etc/issue and /etc/debian_version: + +Q. I upgraded my system to the testing distribution and now my /etc/issue +says "trixie/sid". Should it not read "trixie" or "testing"? + +Q. I upgraded my system to the unstable distribution and now my /etc/issue +says "trixie/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 +"trixie/sid" (or whatever is appropriate). + +Q. Why "trixie/sid" and not "testing/unstable" as it used to be? + +A. The codename is a little bit more informative, as the meaning of +"testing" changes over time. + +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. + +Q. There is a new point release and I've just upgraded my system. +The /etc/debian_version file now says 10.x but /etc/issue still says 10. +Is this ok? + +A. Yes. The release managers asked me not to touch /etc/issue, as that's +a file which is often customized by the user. The /etc/debian_version file, +on the other side, is updated at every point release, so that the exact +Debian version is shown when used by tools like reportbug. + +* Other questions: + +Q. After upgrading my system recently, I noticed that some files from +base-files do not match the ones which are installed on a fresh install +of squeeze. Should I not be warned about that? + +A. Those files are configuration files, so they are completely under +the control of the system admin. The files installed by base-files are +just defaults. Changes in the default files are not important enough +to warn the user, as it is also policy that prompting should be +reduced to a minimum. This is also the reason they are not handled via +dpkg's conffile mechanism. + +In either case, if you want to "upgrade" those files, just look at the +postinst for base-files (i.e. /var/lib/dpkg/info/base-files.postinst) +and you will see how they are created and where their master copies are: + + install_from_default /usr/share/base-files/dot.profile /root/.profile + install_from_default /usr/share/base-files/dot.bashrc /root/.bashrc + install_from_default /usr/share/base-files/profile /etc/profile + install_from_default /usr/share/base-files/motd /etc/motd + +So, if you want your system to be as similar as possible to a newly +installed squeeze system, you might want to sync these files manually. + +Note 1: Since base-files version 6.10, /etc/profile is automatically +upgraded if it has not been modified from a previous default. + +Note 2: The file /etc/nsswitch.conf has been moved to libc-bin. + + +Q. Why isn't license "foo" included in common-licenses? + +A. I delegate such decisions to the policy group. If you want to +propose a new license you should make a policy proposal to modify the +paragraph in policy saying "Packages distributed under the Apache +license (version 2.0), the Artistic license, the GNU GPL (versions 1, +2, or 3), the GNU LGPL (versions 2, 2.1, or 3), and the GNU FDL +(versions 1.2 or 1.3) should refer to the corresponding files under +/usr/share/common-licenses". The way of doing this is explained in the +debian-policy package. As usual, you should always take a look at +already reported bugs against debian-policy before submitting a new +one. + +Q. I upgraded from woody to sarge. Should my system be FHS-compliant now? + +A. Achieving FHS compliance by upgrading would be tricky and prone to +error in certain cases, so it is not a goal of base-files, nor it is +planned to be. By default, some "mandatory" directories (like /opt, +/srv or /media) are only created in the first install (performed by +debootstrap), to keep the code as simple as possible, follow the +principle of least surprise on upgrades, and also to give people the +freedom to remove those directories without them being created again +when base-files is upgraded. Therefore, if you are running any sort of +compliance tests, you should do it on newly installed systems only. + + +Santiago Vila -- cgit v1.2.3