LSB release and /etc/os-release still say "Utopic", needs to be RTM

[Jean-Baptiste Lallement]

Currently bugs cannot be reported with ubuntu-bug from devices running ubuntu-rtm because apport thinks packages are from a non-official release. Please make it recognize ubutnu-rtm as an official release.

[Martin Pitt (pitti)]

I carefully combed through apport, and there are no hardcoded "ubuntu" references. This is just because base-files is still wrong.

[Martin Pitt (pitti)]

Some bug juggling..

[Martin Pitt (pitti)]

Proposed debdiff. "Ubuntu RTM" matches the origin that apt has for the RTM packages.

 * What is the correct changelog target for this? This debdiff uses "14.09".
 * How/where do I upload packages for RTM?

[Oliver Grawert (ogra)]

looks good to me, i think you should just dput to an rtm silo, the changelog target is "14.09" instead of utopic ... and i think our PPA copy mechanism adds ~rtm1 to the version.

[Martin Pitt (pitti)]

Uploading to silo failed with

Rejected:
Unable to find distroseries: 14.09
Further error processing not possible because of a critical previous error.

[Martin Pitt (pitti)]

Ready to be tested in https://launchpad.net/~ci-train-ppa-service/+archive/ubuntu-rtm/landing-019

I tested a local build, worked fine. "apport-bug coreutils" now recognizes the package as "native".

[Launchpad Janitor (janitor)]

This bug was fixed in the package base-files - 7.2ubuntu6rtm1

---------------
base-files (7.2ubuntu6rtm1) 14.09; urgency=medium

  * /etc/issue{,.net}, /etc/{lsb,os}-release: Update for RTM 14.09.
    (LP: #1362496)
 -- Martin Pitt <email address hidden> Thu, 28 Aug 2014 11:57:06 +0200

[Oliver Grawert (ogra)]

thsi had to be reverted again, since it requires changes in the testing infrastructure first

[Martin Pitt (pitti)]

So Adam told me that "RTM" isn't a true release or long-lasting thing, and that apparently os-release etc. are supposed to say Utopic (even though it's not true, as the packages/apt sources etc. are different). So instead it seems we need to hardcode this in add-apt-ftparchive, apport, etc.

[Martin Pitt (pitti)]

So I talked to Alex, and RTM is *not* a temporary thing which is going away in a month, but it's supposed to stay around for a rather long time paralleling Ubuntu. We really shouldn't maintain hardcoded release names/versions then, since that's what /etc/os-release is *for*.

[Martin Pitt (pitti)]

This is a tested apport patch to hardcode the release names. For the record, this is evil, bad, and wrong, introduces a delta into RTM which needs to be maintained manually, and will not be necessary with an /etc/os-release fix, so I will not land this myself. If someone things this is right and os-release should stay wrong, please feel free to upload this.

[Brian Murray (brian-murray)]

This is also preventing the retracing of crashes in the Ubuntu Error Tracker as the retracers are trying to find packages from RTM in the archive for utopic because DistroRelease indicates the crash is from an Ubuntu 14.10 system.

A partial interim solution discussed by the Foundations team is to only update os-release since apport prefers that and a scan of the archive revealed nothing relying upon os-release containing specific values. See further discussions in #ubuntu-devel on 20141009 and in #ubuntu-meeting on the same day.

[Launchpad Janitor (janitor)]

This bug was fixed in the package base-files - 7.2ubuntu6rtm3

---------------
base-files (7.2ubuntu6rtm3) 14.09; urgency=medium

  * /etc/os-release: Updated for RTM 14.09. Only os-release was updated
    because apport prefers that to lsb_release and by using the proper release
    it will be possible to retrace crashes using the RTM archive.
    (LP: #1362496)
 -- Brian Murray <email address hidden> Thu, 09 Oct 2014 13:17:22 -0700

[Martin Pitt (pitti)]

Ah splendid, thanks Brian! Next week I'll have some spare time to walk over my recent RTM archive grep for lsb_release/os-release usage and see whether anything else needs to be fixed (one way or the other).