Re: Please clarify osVersion in ELF package metadata

[Benjamin Drung <bdrung@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Mon, 2024-06-17 at 14:54 +0100, Luca Boccassi wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Jun 2024 at 14:45, 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?
> 
> Hi,
> 
> I replied on ubuntu-devel but it's moderated, so the message didn't
> make it through and is waiting for approval.
> 
> The gist of it is that this is supposed to be machine readable, and be
> what is commonly understood as the version, which for the next ubuntu
> version would be 23.10.
> 
> Given it's sourced from os-release, which is sourced from base-files,
> ideally you'd do an archive-wide rebuild once it is finalized (that
> also gives you builds with newer compiler hardening and other
> niceties). If that's not possible or not wanted, simply omit the
> osVersion field. Parsers need to expect that to be optional, in order
> to avoid breaking on rolling release distros like Arch that do not
> have a version.