Please provide /etc/os-release

LSB is not a standard? SRSLY?

No, /etc/lsb_release is indeed not. Only the "lsb_release" binary is an LSB standard, but having to call a Python script from other programs just to get the current release name is _very_ expensive.

F.Y.I The file is already present in recent versions of the following distros: Angstrom, ArchLinux, Debian (sid), Fedora, Frugalware, OpenSUSE, Fedora, Mageia (and possibly others), so Ubuntu is a little behind on this one. Will this be fixed in time for Quantal?

Not sure why I listed Fedora, twice. That was a mistake!

Dmitrijs, why are you marking this as Opinion? Please don't mark bugs invalid without a brief explanation why.

We'll basically get this for free the next time we merge base-files from Debian. This bug then might not get fixed until 13.04 but it will get fixed.

Thank you

> We'll basically get this for free the next time we merge base-files from Debian.

You will get the file for free but it will still need adjusting to have Ubuntu specific information.

As a side note, in addition to the distros I listed earlier I noticed that Gentoo also added this 3 months back:
http://sources.gentoo.org/cgi-bin/viewvc.cgi/baselayout/trunk/etc.Linux/os-release?view=log&pathrev=3203

Also Slackware have just added this to their development version, so the next Slackware version (14. 0, which is currently at RC3), will include it as well:
http://ftp.slackware.com/pub/slackware/slackware-current/source/a/aaa_base/os-release

Quantal will be the odd one out, since most of the well known distros already have this.

Kindly fix as this helps people like me who continuously switch between distros and its annonying. I was one of those who was happy with lsb-release and the /etc/lsb-release already provided by Ubuntu, however, the reasoning given in this FAQ provides a calm, reasoned explanation why they came up with this in the first place:

http://0pointer.de/blog/projects/os-release

TIA and Much appreciated!

This bug was fixed in the package base-files - 6.5ubuntu9

---------------
base-files (6.5ubuntu9) quantal; urgency=low

  * Install /etc/os-release. LP: #947236.
 -- Matthias Klose <email address hidden> Mon, 10 Sep 2012 15:38:03 +0200

Hello Martin, or anyone else affected,

Accepted into precise-proposed. The package will build now and be available in a few hours in the -proposed repository.

Please help us by testing this new package. See https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Testing/EnableProposed for documentation how to enable and use -proposed. Your feedback will aid us getting this update out to other Ubuntu users.

If this package fixes the bug for you, please change the bug tag from verification-needed to verification-done. If it does not, change the tag to verification-failed. In either case, details of your testing will help us make a better decision.

Further information regarding the verification process can be found at https://wiki.ubuntu.com/QATeam/PerformingSRUVerification . Thank you in advance!

Shouldn't VERSION_ID include the full version ("12.04.1" instead of "12.04")?

Fixed in Raring.

Marking verification-failed, this upload didn't correctly mark /etc/os-release as a conffile, which will make future upgrades prompt for conffile updates, unless we do the preinst deletion trick for the precise version as well.

To avoid the migration magic and hassle, please re-upload with os-release added to conffiles.

Hello Martin, or anyone else affected,

Accepted base-files into quantal-proposed. The package will build now and be available at http://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/base-files/6.5ubuntu12 in a few hours, and then in the -proposed repository.

Please help us by testing this new package. See https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Testing/EnableProposed for documentation how to enable and use -proposed. Your feedback will aid us getting this update out to other Ubuntu users.

If this package fixes the bug for you, please change the bug tag from verification-needed to verification-done. If it does not, change the tag to verification-failed. In either case, details of your testing will help us make a better decision.

Further information regarding the verification process can be found at https://wiki.ubuntu.com/QATeam/PerformingSRUVerification . Thank you in advance!

Hello Martin, or anyone else affected,

Accepted base-files into precise-proposed. The package will build now and be available at http://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/base-files/6.5ubuntu6.4 in a few hours, and then in the -proposed repository.

Please help us by testing this new package. See https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Testing/EnableProposed for documentation how to enable and use -proposed. Your feedback will aid us getting this update out to other Ubuntu users.

If this package fixes the bug for you, please change the bug tag from verification-needed to verification-done. If it does not, change the tag to verification-failed. In either case, details of your testing will help us make a better decision.

Further information regarding the verification process can be found at https://wiki.ubuntu.com/QATeam/PerformingSRUVerification . Thank you in advance!

Verified on both quantal and precise with the following steps:

[precise]
1) From a base precise release, upgrade to the current proposed version, and verify that /etc/os-release exists with the correct contents and is listed as a conffile.
2) From a base precise release, upgrade to the previous broken proposed version, then update to the current one, verify that /etc/os-release was not a conffile before, and was properly migrated after the upgrade.

[quantal]
1) From a base quantal release, upgrade to the proposed version, and verify that /etc/os-release was correctly migrated to being a conffile, and retains the original contents.

The verification of this Stable Release Update has completed successfully and the package has now been released to -updates. Subsequently, the Ubuntu Stable Release Updates Team is being unsubscribed and will not receive messages about this bug report. In the event that you encounter a regression using the package from -updates please report a new bug using ubuntu-bug and tag the bug report regression-update so we can easily find any regresssions.

This bug was fixed in the package base-files - 6.5ubuntu6.4

---------------
base-files (6.5ubuntu6.4) precise; urgency=low

  * Mark /etc/os-release as a conffile, and migrate it in the preinst
    for the benefit of people who tested the previous precise version

base-files (6.5ubuntu6.3) precise-proposed; urgency=low

  * Install /etc/os-release. LP: #947236.
 -- Adam Conrad <email address hidden> Tue, 23 Oct 2012 22:52:07 +0100

This bug was fixed in the package base-files - 6.5ubuntu12

---------------
base-files (6.5ubuntu12) quantal; urgency=low

  * Remove leap-second hack, which causes issues on some VMs: LP: #1022198
  * Migrate /etc/os-release to a conffile, see LP: #947236 for rationale.
 -- Adam Conrad <email address hidden> Tue, 23 Oct 2012 11:16:32 +0100