Add additional attributes in /etc/os-release

[Mike Carifio]

Please add 'CPE_NAME' and 'BUILD_ID' to /etc/os-release.

More at http://www.freedesktop.org/software/systemd/man/os-release.html.

I'm not sure BUILD_ID should be something like 'vivid' etc, but it would be a nice use. Or introduce a new attribute/value pair like

NICKNAME_ID="vivid"

No rush. Thanks for adopting this convention so quickly.

ProblemType: Bug
DistroRelease: Ubuntu 15.04
Package: base-files 7.2ubuntu9
Uname: Linux 4.1.0-rc5carif-00007-ga8b253b x86_64
ApportVersion: 2.17.2-0ubuntu1.1
Architecture: amd64
CurrentDesktop: Unity
Date: Tue Jul 7 10:26:02 2015
Dependencies:

InstallationDate: Installed on 2014-11-04 (245 days ago)
InstallationMedia: Ubuntu 14.10 "Utopic Unicorn" - Release amd64 (20141022.1)
ProcEnviron:
 LANGUAGE=en_US
 PATH=(custom, no user)
 XDG_RUNTIME_DIR=<set>
 LANG=en_US.UTF-8
 SHELL=/bin/bash
SourcePackage: base-files
UpgradeStatus: Upgraded to vivid on 2015-04-25 (73 days ago)

[Launchpad Janitor (janitor)]

Status changed to 'Confirmed' because the bug affects multiple users.

[Alexander Scheel (cipherboy)]

This is a debdiff for Hirsute, applicable against 11ubuntu18 to add CPE_NAME. I ended up quoting it to follow what Fedora does but from what I (and ShellCheck) can tell from testing the resulting .deb with bash and sh, it doesn't strictly need to be quoted.

Per discussion with Steve Beattie (~sbeattie), we'd be interested in pursuing a Feature Exception request for this prior to doing backports for older releases. Does that sound OK?

[Mike Carifio (carifio)]

On 4/6/21 5:33 PM, Alexander Scheel wrote:
> This is a debdiff for Hirsute, applicable against 11ubuntu18 to add
> CPE_NAME. I ended up quoting it to follow what Fedora does but from what
> I (and ShellCheck) can tell from testing the resulting .deb with bash
> and sh, it doesn't strictly need to be quoted.
>
> Per discussion with Steve Beattie (~sbeattie), we'd be interested in
> pursuing a Feature Exception request for this prior to doing backports
> for older releases. Does that sound OK?
>
> ** Patch added: "2-11ubuntu19.debdiff"
> https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/base-files/+bug/1472288/+attachment/5484958/+files/2-11ubuntu19.debdiff
>
Not sure what a "feature exception" is. But whatever you deem best
(since you did the work). Ty.

[Ubuntu Foundations Team Bug Bot (crichton)]

The attachment "2-11ubuntu19.debdiff" seems to be a debdiff. The ubuntu-sponsors team has been subscribed to the bug report so that they can review and hopefully sponsor the debdiff. If the attachment isn't a patch, please remove the "patch" flag from the attachment, remove the "patch" tag, and if you are member of the ~ubuntu-sponsors, unsubscribe the team.

[This is an automated message performed by a Launchpad user owned by ~brian-murray, for any issue please contact him.]

[Robie Basak (racb)]

I'm just driving past the sponsorship queue.

How can we validate that the CPE_NAME you're adding is definitely the correct one for us to use in Ubuntu?

Your debdiff doesn't include adding BUILD_ID, so maybe this bug needs renaming to be specific to CPE_NAME? BUILD_ID sounds like something based on the installer used - like /var/log/installer/media-info or /etc/cloud/build.info. But that would mean that /etc/os-release could no longer be a simple conffile and would have to be managed via a postinst and ucf or something.

[Robie Basak (racb)]

Unsubscribing sponsors since there's no action to take unless my question above is answered. Once done, please resubscribe ~ubuntu-sponsors.

[Jeremy Bícha (jbicha)]

Why do you want /etc/os-release to contain CPE_NAME?

It is an optional field and it seems easier to parse the other fields to figure out that you are running Ubuntu 21.04.