Author rb
Recipients berker.peksag, christian.heimes, doko, lemburg, lukasz.langa, mbussonn, ned.deily, petr.viktorin, rb, serhiy.storchaka, vstinner, yan12125
Date 2018-10-08.12:33:10
SpamBayes Score -1.0
Marked as misclassified Yes
Message-id <>
Apologies for my tone. I wasn't aware that starting out with a PyPI module is the only accepted process for getting functionality into stdlib. That certainly is a lot of work for what would be a trivial handful of lines to parse key/value pairs and handle error paths, etc (and corresponding tests of course).

As a distribution developer, from my perspective we've already (finally) managed to reach widespread standardization and unification on a simple key/value pair specification, so it is particularly surprising to me that as a Python developer I cannot easily get to it.

IMHO, forcing the PyPI route seems like a recipe for scope creep to me in this case. Looking at that module, it tries to do so much more. /etc/os-release is widely accepted nowadays, and I think it would be widely useful to the majority of users to simply pass the values through to a Python dictionary, reflecting "this is what the OS says it is" over "this is my promised stable view". Many of the issues there are because it's trying to be "clever", IMHO, rather than just passing through the provided information from the platform. My proposed API promise would simply be "this is what os-release says" or "os-release information not available".

Of course the most popular PyPI module to solve a particular problem will always be the one with the widest scope, so there seems little point in writing a parallel minimal one. The cost of adding Yet Another Dependency has to be paid in either case.
Date User Action Args
2018-10-08 12:33:10rbsetrecipients: + rb, lemburg, doko, vstinner, christian.heimes, ned.deily, petr.viktorin, lukasz.langa, berker.peksag, serhiy.storchaka, mbussonn, yan12125
2018-10-08 12:33:10rbsetmessageid: <>
2018-10-08 12:33:10rblinkissue28167 messages
2018-10-08 12:33:10rbcreate