Soaring in lsb_release

Wasn't Soaring a previous release? i.e. shouldn't the release really be a number: "230305"?

File: /etc/lsb-release

Soaring has always been just a substitution for the "rolling" in Arch. If I remember correctly, because "birds don't roll" :rofl: .
Actually, using the release name there and a date in codename would be only an additional burden, since the dates at the end of our ISO names are generated for the periodical builds, which often are only developmental and sometimes get official being copied in the download sources.
In my opinion, knowing that date is important only for initial installation issues, when it is fair to ask for the ISO name anyway.
After that it should be less relevant, since the systems should be kept up-to-date, rolling (soaring :blush:).
This is just my general understanding, I don't think this was ever discussed so far. I guess a confirmation will come from someone in the historical / core team :wink:


Thanks @filo, that makes sense. The spec itself says it should be a number but now that I think about it I do know of a handful of places (like Debian) where rolling releases use something different, usually "testing". That said, my personal opinion is that it should align with the systemd way of doing things, os-release in which we have this:

File: /etc/os-release
NAME="Garuda Linux"
PRETTY_NAME="Garuda Linux"

This makes me ponder whether DISTRIB_RELEASE should be "rolling" but in the grand scheme of things it doesn't matter one bit..


This topic was automatically closed 14 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.