Message83861
I just read back through this ticket, but I didn't understand exactly
what MAL wanted to have different from what this Python function
currently does:
http://allmydata.org/trac/tahoe/browser/src/allmydata/__init__.py?rev=20081125155118-92b7f-f74fc964ebd9d3c59afde68b6688c56ce20cca39#L31
MAL, could you please restate the changes you want?
By the way I think there is some confusion about what is standardized by
LSB. As far as I know this one page is the complete spec:
http://refspecs.freestandards.org/LSB_3.2.0/LSB-Core-generic/LSB-Core-generic/lsbrelease.html
and it doesn't specify the existence of any file that we can parse. So
the quote you mention: "Linux System Base-compliant systems should have
a file called /etc/lsb_release, which may be in addition to a
distribution-specific file." is just wrong. More's the pity -- most
implementations use a file named /etc/lsb-release, and we can parse
that, and if we do it is much faster than executing the lsb_release
executable in a subprocess. The slowness of invoking subprocess is why
I was forced to back off from my original patch of merely using only
what the LSB offers.
A second problem with relying on LSB is, as I've mentioned, that some
Linux distributions don't come (by default) with the de-facto-standard
"lsb_release" executable although they do come with an /etc/lsb-release
file.
That's why my current strategy is:
1. Parse the de-facto-nearly-standard /etc/lsb-release file.
2. Ad-hoc techniques encoded into the Python Standard Library's
platform.dist().
3. Execute the de-jure-standard "lsb_release" in a subprocess.
4. Arch Linux |
|
Date |
User |
Action |
Args |
2009-03-20 13:48:52 | zooko | set | recipients:
+ zooko, lemburg, georg.brandl, doko, draghuram, christian.heimes, sapetnioc, benjamin.peterson, pavel.vinogradov, bgomes |
2009-03-20 13:48:52 | zooko | set | messageid: <1237556932.58.0.306761760911.issue1322@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
2009-03-20 13:48:47 | zooko | link | issue1322 messages |
2009-03-20 13:48:43 | zooko | create | |
|