#1147497 base-files: /etc/os-release on Debian GNU/Hurd: NAME should be "Debian GNU/Hurd" and not "Debian GNU/Linux" #1147497
- Package:
- base-files
- Source:
- base-files
- Description:
- Debian base system miscellaneous files
- Submitter:
- Thomas Dreibholz
- Date:
- 2026-09-12 12:47:01 UTC
- Severity:
- normal
On Debian GNU/Hurd architectures (hurd-i386 / hurd-amd64), /etc/os-release correctly sets PRETTY_NAME to "Debian GNU/Hurd...", but NAME remains set to "Debian GNU/Linux". Expected value: NAME="Debian GNU/Hurd" Actual value: NAME="Debian GNU/Linux"
That's simply not possible... Both PRETTY_NAME and NAME come from the etc/os-release template in the source code (which you can get by doing "apt-get source base-files"), and the template reads like this: PRETTY_NAME="#OSNAME# forky/sid" NAME="#OSNAME#" So, unless you changed the file by hand, or allowed a program to change the file, those two fields should be the same. Moreover, you can see how the latest version of the package was built here: https://buildd.debian.org/status/fetch.php?pkg=base-files&arch=hurd-amd64&ver=14.2&stamp=1780222272&raw=0 Quote: sed -e "sOSNAME#&Debian GNU/Hurd&g" etc/os-release > debian/base-files/etc/os-release Can you "apt-get download base-files" and examine the actual .deb package distributed by Debian, not the file /etc/os-release in your system? Thanks.
Hi, I used the current Debian Hurd image as described in https://cdimage.debian.org/cdimage/ports/latest/hurd-i386/README: demo@debian:~$ uname -a GNU debian 0.9 GNU-Mach 1.8+git20250731-up-486/Hurd-0.9 i686-AT386 GNU demo@debian:~$ cat /etc/os-release PRETTY_NAME="Debian GNU/Hurd 13 (trixie)" NAME="Debian GNU/Linux" VERSION_ID="13" VERSION="13 (trixie)" VERSION_CODENAME=trixie DEBIAN_VERSION_FULL=13.0 ID=debian HOME_URL="https://www.debian.org/" SUPPORT_URL="https://www.debian.org/support" BUG_REPORT_URL="https://bugs.debian.org/" demo@debian:~$ ls -al /etc/os-release lrwxr-xr-x 1 root root 21 mai 12 2025 /etc/os-release-> ../usr/lib/os-release demo@debian:~$ ls -al /usr/lib/os-release -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 285 mai 12 2025 /usr/lib/os-release Checking the sources: demo@debian:~$ sudo apt source base-files MERK: «base-files»-pakker blir vedlikeholdt i versjonskontrollsystemet «Git» på: https://salsa.debian.org/sanvila/base-files.git Please use: git clone https://salsa.debian.org/sanvila/base-files.git to retrieve the latest (possibly unreleased) updates to the package. Trenger å skaffe 69,8 kB fra kildekodearkivet. Hent:1 http://snapshot.debian.org/archive/debian/20250807T000000Z sid/main base-files 13.8 (dsc) [1 215 B] Hent:2 http://snapshot.debian.org/archive/debian/20250807T000000Z sid/main base-files 13.8 (tar) [68,6 kB] Hentet 69,8 kB på 1s (87,3 kB/s) dpkg-source: info: extracting base-files in base-files-13.8 dpkg-source: info: unpacking base-files_13.8.tar.xz demo@debian:~$ cat base-files-13.8/etc/os-release PRETTY_NAME="Debian #OSNAME# 13 (trixie)" NAME="Debian GNU/Linux" VERSION_ID="13" VERSION="13 (trixie)" VERSION_CODENAME=trixie DEBIAN_VERSION_FULL=13.0 ID=debian HOME_URL="https://www.debian.org/" SUPPORT_URL="https://www.debian.org/support" BUG_REPORT_URL="https://bugs.debian.org/" The string "Debian GNU/Linux" is hard-coded. May be base-files in Debian Hurd needs an update? Den 12.09.2026 14:08, skrev Santiago Vila:
Hi, I found the issue: The Debian Hurd "latest" image points to old package repositories in /etc/apt/sources.list: http://snapshot.debian.org/archive/debian-ports/20250807T000000Z ... After changing all the entries to 20260911T000000Z, I get an updated base-files package. Then, /etc/os-release is as expected: demo@debian:~/system-tools$ cat /etc/os-release PRETTY_NAME="Debian GNU/Hurd forky/sid" NAME="Debian GNU/Hurd" VERSION_CODENAME=forky ID=debian HOME_URL="https://www.debian.org/" SUPPORT_URL="https://www.debian.org/support" BUG_REPORT_URL="https://bugs.debian.org/" May be the README https://cdimage.debian.org/cdimage/ports/latest/hurd-i386/README (and the amd64 version, etc.) should be extended to check and update /etc/apt/sources.list to really get the "latest" packages? Den 12.09.2026 14:31, skrev Thomas Dreibholz: