4 ms·
recently the majority of the big distributions adopted /etc/os-release and many small ones did, too[2] [2] To our knowledge at least OpenSUSE, Fedora, ArchLinu
by waitwhat 15y ago
recently the majority of the big distributions adopted /etc/os-release and many small ones did, too[2]
[2] To our knowledge at least OpenSUSE, Fedora, ArchLinux, Angstrom, Frugalware have adopted this.
So "OpenSUSE, Fedora, ArchLinux, Angstrom, Frugalware" is "the majority of the big distributions" now?
- RyanMcGreal 15y agoUbuntu 11.10 Oneiric: ~$ /etc/os-release bash: /etc/os-release: No such file or directory
- ars 15y agoDebian is quite notably missing from that list. http://bugs.debian.org/659853 http://bugs.debian.org/659853 It doesn't have /etc/lsb-release either. http://bugs.debian.org/444678 http://bugs.debian.org/444678 Instead the lsb-release program apparently simply outputs the necessary values without using a configuration file. I'm guessing the debian version of systemd just patches it to handle debian, and not make it autoconfigure each time from a configuration file.
- waitwhat 15y ago(Sorry, it's hard to judge the right amount of sarcasm on the internet.) The author of this blog post, Lennart Poettering, apparently works for Red Hat. Even Hat Enterprise Linux is missing from the list. As is CentOS.
- dignan 15y agoI think it's really only missing Debian and Ubuntu to cover the "big distributions", so while "majority" might be a strong word, it does seem to have about half of them. There also seems to be a bug report for it on Debian: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=659891 http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=659891 One thing I feel people might be missing is that /etc/os-release could be applicable to Mac OS and the BSDs, making it widely applicable.