Why not just add "lsb-release" as a dependency to steam, then every installation of steam will install lsb-release automatically. It just seems silly to just add lsb-release as default in the installation iso all because of one software....
make it an opt-depend actually.
lsb-release: tell everyone yer usin ARCH!!!
]]>os-prober uses the existence of /etc/lsb-release to "find" other linux O/S's when it runs. The advantage is that you don't have to mount anything - it will mount the fs and look for the file.
It is a common problem for people who dual boot to find that grub, running from Ubuntu, won't "find" Arch. There are various ways to deal with the problem, but copying Ubuntu's lsb-release file into Arch/etc is a simple one and leaves everything running on automatic. Presumably this file would be placed there by an actual install of lsb_release. I was unaware that Steam also uses lsb_release.
While I applaud simplicity, I think there is a case to be made for this small inclusion in basic Arch: Other things use it (grub, Steam) and it is a continuing source of confusion and forum questions (there are two or three examples just on the front couple of pages of the Newbie forum as I write this - and usually are). Having it installed by default will clear up a number of recurring technical issues for some users. I think there's some value in that since it's a tiny and unobtrusive change.
]]>I like that lsb-release is optional, just like all branding is optional.
it makes Arch as generic as possible. Personally though, i do opt for the branding.
Generic in technical part is good, for example when using KDE SC and don't want GNOME stuff.
But to wave the flag to identify the distribution, the people behind it and its community, is an other part.
it makes Arch as generic as possible. Personally though, i do opt for the branding.
]]>Lsb-release is a way to poll what people actually use, unless they intentionally use falsified information.
]]>petition Steam to use os-release
That was done months ago.
Standards, eh! Who needs 'em?
]]>I guess the user could always -Rdd, as it would seem that the package would still function without it.
If that is the case, then it definitely shouldn't be a dependency - maybe an optional dependency only.
A package should not list dependencies that the program/tool does not actually require for the sole purpose of satisfying someone else's idea of what they should have installed ... even if I agree with that someone else's idea.
EDIT: tone is lost online, and this could be read as much more harsh than intended. I'd be all for ecouraging everyone to install lsb_release. But requiring it when it really isn't necessary for something to run properly just seems like a bad idea.
]]>