Bryan Seitz wrote:
I would love to see /etc/os-release added to CentOS5 and CentOS6 as well. Keep up the good work!
But os-release is a systemd "feature"*. Seems unlikely to make it ? Might as well use `/usr/bin/lsb_release` (and redhat-lsb-core) then.
Ironically it doesn't even contain the name of the Operating System... We saw this when it was introduced in (and broke) PackageKit earlier.
I don't think it's possible to change all redhat-release usage anyway.
Even redhat-lsb-core installs an insane amount of garbage just to get that one function we want. Other distributions (At least Debian/Ubuntu) already use /etc/os-release and there is no reason it cannot be populated by the centos-release package on C5/C6 as well. It is a good idea, the file has useful and standard contents, and it just works.
I am not advocating doing away with the legacy files, but this solution just makes sense and is the right thing to do moving forward.
I suppose there's nothing wrong with having *both* of them around. As long as it doesn't replace/delete the original files, that is...
It does address my concerns (for redhat-release) in that article, too. :-)
Seems like the mandated /usr/lib/os-release is missing from centos-release ? Supposedly /etc/os-release should be a relative symlink, for "compatibility".
Says http://www.freedesktop.org/software/systemd/man/os-release.html
But you would still need to parse "some other file" to get the minor version.
Since systemd only includes the "operating system version", i.e. 5 or 6 or 7
NAME="CentOS" VERSION="6 (Final)" ID="centos" ID_LIKE="rhel fedora" VERSION_ID="6" PRETTY_NAME="CentOS 6 (Final)" ANSI_COLOR="0;31" CPE_NAME="cpe:/o:centos:centos:6" HOME_URL="https://www.centos.org/" BUG_REPORT_URL="https://bugs.centos.org/"
So that old redhat-release would still be "needed", for getting at the 6.6...
--anders