[systemd-devel] Please clarify osVersion in ELF package metadata

[Adrian Vovk]

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 at ubuntu.com> 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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/systemd-devel/attachments/20240617/4a1540cf/attachment.htm>