On Tue, Dec 21, 2021 at 02:19:50PM +0100, john doe wrote: > On 12/21/2021 10:41 AM, Andrea Bolognani wrote: > > On Mon, Dec 20, 2021 at 10:59:15PM +0100, Martin Kletzander wrote: > > > Any reason for debian not having an -unknown version like lot of the > > > other distros? > > > > I don't think there's a specific reason for that, it's probably just > > a matter of nobody thinking of it until now :) > > > > In addition to that, considering that there already entries for > > Debian testing and Fedora Rawhide, adding one for Debian unstable > > might make sense too. > > > > That would be lovely if 'debian-unknown' and 'debian11' could be > available on Bullseye!!! :) > > Is it intentional that the Debian URLs in the output of 'osinfo-query > os' point to 'debian.org/debian/VERSION_ID' instead of > 'debian.org/releases/VERSION_ID|VERSION_CODENAME'? The URLs are not a pointer to any specific resource. They are just an arbitrarily invented unique identifier & once released, we must never change any URL. By convention we pick a short "product name" as the first path component, because over time vendors have introduced new or parallel products. Thus '/releases/' would not be future proof. As an example, Fedora has both the traditional 'fedora' OS releases and 'silverblue'. Regards, Daniel -- |: https://berrange.com -o- https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange :| |: https://libvirt.org -o- https://fstop138.berrange.com :| |: https://entangle-photo.org -o- https://www.instagram.com/dberrange :|
