| msg187089 - (view) |
Author: Matthias Klose (doko) *  |
Date: 2013-04-16 15:01 |
| http://www.freedesktop.org/software/systemd/man/os-release.html is a recent standard describing release information for an operating system. platform.linux_distribution() should know about it. - should that be the first file to be parsed? - names returned for the ID are different than the ones returned from /etc/lsb-release. The os-release thing only allows lower case letters for the ID (e.g. Ubuntu vs. ubuntu). The list of _supported_distros may need to list both. - take the version from VERSION_ID - there is no real attribute for the code name. The closest maybe is VERSION. |
|
|
| msg187389 - (view) |
Author: Éric Araujo (eric.araujo) * |
Date: 2013-04-19 22:08 |
| os-release finally provides a cross-OS release file with a specification. I think it should be authoritative, then the lsb-release system (it’s officially a script but many OSes just parse a static file), then OS-specific files. |
|
|
| msg201013 - (view) |
Author: Christian Heimes (christian.heimes) * |
Date: 2013-10-23 11:05 |
| *bump up* I'd like to see the feature in 3.4. It shouldn't be too hard to implement it. A patch would also solve #1322 and #9514 on most modern systems. For the record RHEL 5, RHEL 6.4, SLES 11 and Ubuntu 10.04 don't have /etc/os-release. Ubuntu 12.04 has the file. |
|
|
| msg201023 - (view) |
Author: -- (elixir) * |
Date: 2013-10-23 13:47 |
| I'm working on a patch. Hopefully, it will be ready in a day or two. |
|
|
| msg201144 - (view) |
Author: -- (elixir) * |
Date: 2013-10-24 14:59 |
| I added a patch (my first patch!). platform.linux_distribution() now first looks in /etc/os-release. If this file is not found, checking continues as before. |
|
|
| msg201152 - (view) |
Author: Vajrasky Kok (vajrasky) * |
Date: 2013-10-24 16:20 |
| Hi Andrei Duma, I have looked at your patch but have not tested it yet. But it seems to me that your patch is a little bit weak against the case where the file /etc/os-release is found, but not fully functional (either garbage, or only releases NAME information but not VERSION). But again, I am not so sure we should really bit pedantic about this or not. Need to do some investigation. |
|
|
| msg201154 - (view) |
Author: Marc-Andre Lemburg (lemburg) * |
Date: 2013-10-24 16:31 |
| On 24.10.2013 16:59, Andrei Dorian Duma wrote: > > I added a patch (my first patch!). > > platform.linux_distribution() now first looks in /etc/os-release. If this file is not found, checking continues as before. Looks good. |
|
|
| msg201518 - (view) |
Author: Vajrasky Kok (vajrasky) * |
Date: 2013-10-28 09:09 |
| Apparently my fear is unfounded. The dist, version, id have been initialized with empty value. So if the os-release file does not have complete information, it should be okay with the patch from Andrei Duma. |
|
|
| msg201543 - (view) |
Author: Vajrasky Kok (vajrasky) * |
Date: 2013-10-28 14:23 |
| Hi, Andrei. Could you provide the test? You could take a look at issue 17429 to see how it is done. http://bugs.python.org/issue17429 We would be grateful if you could test the case where os-release file is non-ascii encoded file (although technically it should be tested in issue 17429). Sometimes the Linux distro version has non-ascii characters, such as Schrödinger's Cat. |
|
|
| msg201603 - (view) |
Author: -- (elixir) * |
Date: 2013-10-29 05:09 |
| Yes, I will provide a patch including tests soon. |
|
|
| msg201987 - (view) |
Author: -- (elixir) * |
Date: 2013-11-02 21:02 |
| New patch. Added tests and fixed uncaught OSError. |
|
|
| msg202394 - (view) |
Author: STINNER Victor (vstinner) * |
Date: 2013-11-07 23:15 |
| Comments on add_os_release_support_2.patch: - You should not write a huge try/except OSError block. I would prefer something like: try: f = open(...) except OSError: return None with f: ... - I'm not sure about that, but you might use errors='surrogateescape', just in case if the file is not correctly encoded. Surrogate characters are maybe less annoying than a huge UnicodeDecodeError - You use /etc/os-release even if the file is empty. Do you know if there is a standard, or something like that explaining if some keys are mandatory? For example, we can ignore os-release if 'ID' or 'VERSION_ID' key is missing - For the unit test, you should write at least a test on linux_distribution() to check that your private function is used correctly - You add unit tests for all escaped characters (', ", \), for comments, and maybe also for maformated lines (to have a well defined behaviour, ignore them or raise an error) - _UNIXCONFDIR looks to be dedicated to unit tests, can't you patch builtin open() instead? It would avoid the need of a temporary directory |
|
|
| msg202395 - (view) |
Author: Matthias Klose (doko) * |
Date: 2013-11-07 23:33 |
| my concern here is that platform.linux_distribution returns different values for the tuple, wether os-release is found or the lsb config file is found. I don't know about a good solution, however if the return value has different values, that has to be clearly documented, or maybe unified in some form. |
|
|
| msg205773 - (view) |
Author: Vajrasky Kok (vajrasky) * |
Date: 2013-12-10 07:21 |
| This patch needs to be updated to tip since this commit: http://hg.python.org/cpython/rev/4580976c07cb |
|
|
| msg224548 - (view) |
Author: Jason Robinson (jaywink) * |
Date: 2014-08-02 10:53 |
| platform.linux_distribution is being deprecated in 3.5 and removed in 3.6 as stated in comment http://bugs.python.org/issue1322#msg207427 in issue #1322 I'm guessing this issue should be closed when that patch is merged in? |
|
|
| msg243088 - (view) |
Author: Petr Viktorin (petr.viktorin) * |
Date: 2015-05-13 14:15 |
| The functions have been deprecated in #1322, is it time to close this? |
|
|
| msg243092 - (view) |
Author: Marc-Andre Lemburg (lemburg) * |
Date: 2015-05-13 14:21 |
| See for why we're closing this. |
|
|