On Sun, Feb 17, 2013 at 11:08:25PM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > On Sun, Feb 17, 2013 at 02:40:28AM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> > > Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > > > On Sat, Feb 16, 2013 at 10:33:09AM -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > > > > On Sat, Feb 16, 2013 at 09:44:22AM +0100, Christoph Berg wrote:
> > > > > > Re: Bruce Momjian 2013-02-16 <20130216013854.GD12029@momjian.us>
> > > > > > > I don't think "codename" is really good wording here:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > That's the official Debian/Ubuntu term, though we can certainly use
> > > > > > something else if it makes things easier for users.
> > > > >
> > > > > OK. How do people find their codename?
> > > >
> > > > OK, I found the answer:
> > > >
> > > > $ lsb_release --short --codename
> > > > squeeze
> > >
> > > Uhm.
> > >
> > > $ lsb_release
> > > No LSB modules are available.
> >
> > Uh, that's what I get too. Try it with the arguments I suggested,
> > please.
>
> Oh, what a weird program. Yes, I get "wheezy" with your suggested
> options.
Adding to this complexity, I just realized that the Ubuntu code names
are different from the Debian code names, even though Ubuntu is based on
Debian. Fortunately "lsb_release --short --codename" works on both.
While most Debian users probably know their code name, I doubt Ubuntu
users do.
Do we actually create different packages for Debian and Ubuntu?
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +
