Marc-Andre Lemburg added the comment:
See issue1322 for why we're closing this.
--
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue17762
___
___
Petr Viktorin added the comment:
The functions have been deprecated in #1322, is it time to close this?
--
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue17762
___
Changes by Marc-Andre Lemburg m...@egenix.com:
--
resolution: - wont fix
status: open - closed
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue17762
___
Changes by Petr Viktorin encu...@gmail.com:
--
nosy: +encukou
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue17762
___
___
Python-bugs-list mailing
Jason Robinson added the comment:
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?
--
nosy: +jaywink
Changes by Jakub Wilk jw...@jwilk.net:
--
nosy: +jwilk
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue17762
___
___
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Vajrasky Kok added the comment:
This patch needs to be updated to tip since this commit:
http://hg.python.org/cpython/rev/4580976c07cb
--
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue17762
STINNER Victor added the comment:
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
Matthias Klose added the comment:
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
Changes by Andrei Dorian Duma andrei.duma.dor...@gmail.com:
--
nosy: +haypo
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue17762
___
___
Andrei Dorian Duma added the comment:
New patch. Added tests and fixed uncaught OSError.
--
Added file: http://bugs.python.org/file32467/add_os_release_support_2.patch
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue17762
Vajrasky Kok added the comment:
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.
--
___
Vajrasky Kok added the comment:
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
Changes by Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis arfrever@gmail.com:
--
nosy: +Arfrever
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue17762
___
Andrei Dorian Duma added the comment:
Yes, I will provide a patch including tests soon.
--
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue17762
___
Andrei Dorian Duma added the comment:
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.
--
keywords: +patch
Added file:
Vajrasky Kok added the comment:
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
Marc-Andre Lemburg added the comment:
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.
--
Christian Heimes added the comment:
*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
Andrei Dorian Duma added the comment:
I'm working on a patch. Hopefully, it will be ready in a day or two.
--
nosy: +AndreiDuma
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue17762
___
Changes by Christian Heimes li...@cheimes.de:
--
nosy: +christian.heimes
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue17762
___
___
Éric Araujo added the comment:
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.
--
assignee: - lemburg
New submission from Matthias Klose:
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
Changes by Ezio Melotti ezio.melo...@gmail.com:
--
nosy: +ezio.melotti
type: - enhancement
___
Python tracker rep...@bugs.python.org
http://bugs.python.org/issue17762
___
24 matches
Mail list logo
