I think it makes most sense for a distro to pick one thing and stick to it. Otherwise there's no good way to compare packages (i.e. imagine a custom build of libfoo relying on osVersion but the distro build relying on osVersionCodename - you can't programmatically tell if both packages are compatible with the same OS version).
The "typically" seems to imply that distros ultimately have flexibility here. If it makes most sense for Ubuntu to use codenames, you should use codenames there IMO.
Best,
Adrian
On Mon, Jun 17, 2024, 08:32 Benjamin Drung <bdrung@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi,
Ubuntu started to implement the ELF package metadata spec. It encodes
the VERSION_ID from os-release in the osVersion field. Using VERSION_ID
was objected to because the version is only set in stone once the
release is done. It could change during the development cycle. See
https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-devel/2024-June/043027.html
and https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/dpkg/+bug/2069599
The proposal is to use VERSION_CODENAME from os-release instead.
To me it is not clear enough what is the best approach regarding the
spec https://systemd.io/ELF_PACKAGE_METADATA/ here.
The key description says "typically"? So could we just use
VERSION_CODENAME for osVersion?
Or should be use a different key like osVersionCodename to allow third-
party users to still use VERSION_ID for osVersion? In that case
osVersionCodename should probably added to the well-known keys.
What's your take on it?
--
Benjamin Drung
Debian & Ubuntu Developer
