Hi Michael, Sorry this sat for six months. I've picked it up and prepared the patch for upload; a merge request against the team repository is here:
https://salsa.debian.org/python-team/packages/python-cpuinfo/-/merge_requests/2 One thing worth recording for whoever looks at this next: the patch as attached does not apply to the packaging tree as-is. It was generated against a tree that already had 0001-python-cpuinfo-hppa-v2.patch applied, so the two hunks touching the arch list in _check_arch() and the exception message conflict with the hppa patch. Ordering it after that patch in debian/patches/series is enough - no changes to the diff itself were needed. I made three cosmetic changes while rebasing, nothing functional: aligned the new 'ALPHA' list entry with the surrounding tab indentation, dropped a stray blank line before "# Various fields", and removed two trailing semicolons on the hz_actual lines. With the full stack applied the upstream test suite still passes here: 166 passed, 1 skipped - though that only shows the change doesn't regress other architectures, since none of those tests exercise the new code. To check the Alpha paths themselves I mocked DataSource against a reconstructed Alpha /proc/cpuinfo (built from show_cpuinfo() in arch/alpha/kernel/setup.c - I have no Alpha hardware here). Before and after, same input: unpatched patched _parse_arch() (None, None) ('ALPHA', 64) _check_arch() raises no exception brand_raw 'Alpha' 'EV6' hz_actual None (466337464, 0) = 466.3375 MHz hardware_raw None 'AlphaServer ES40 6/667' So the mechanism does what it says, and the " est." suffix on the cycle frequency line parses fine. The 'cpu model' and 'platform string' overrides both trigger. What I can't confirm is that my reconstructed fixture matches what a real machine prints, which brings me to the first ask below. Two things I could use your help with. First, a test fixture. Upstream keeps one test file per architecture (tests/test_linux_aarch64_64.py, tests/test_linux_fedora_5_s390x.py and so on), and there's no Alpha equivalent yet. Could you send the output of cat /proc/cpuinfo from the machine you tested on, plus python3 -c "import cpuinfo, json; print(json.dumps(cpuinfo.get_cpu_info(), indent=2))" with the patch applied? That would let me write tests/test_linux_alpha.py in the same shape as the others. The Hz handling in particular deserves a test, since Alpha is the only architecture reporting "cycle frequency [Hz]" in Hz rather than MHz and the scale factor change touches every other arch's code path. Second, has this been sent upstream? The patch is currently marked Forwarded: no. Upstream is https://github.com/workhorsy/py-cpuinfo and a pull request there would spare Debian carrying this indefinitely. Happy to open it myself with you as the author if you'd rather not. Note that I can't upload this myself - I'm neither DD nor DM - so it still needs a sponsor. Emmanuel Arias has the ITA (#1093668); I've pinged him on the merge request. Regards, Malik
