Filename: //proc/self/root///usr/share//doc/base-files/FAQ

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 "bookworm/sid". Should it not read "bookworm" or "testing"? Q. I upgraded my system to the unstable distribution and now my /etc/issue says "bookworm/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 "bookworm/sid" (or whatever is appropriate). Q. Why "bookworm/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 <sanvila@debian.org>

./Ninja\.