Marc-Andre Lemburg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> added the comment: On 2008-09-23 21:49, Zooko O'Whielacronx wrote: > Zooko O'Whielacronx <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> added the comment: > > MAL: why do you say it is better to look for > /etc/$supportedplatform-release files first instead of looking for > /etc/lsb-release first?
Because that's exactly what lsb_release does as well. The data in /etc/lsb-release can only override data already parsed from the /etc/<distro>-release file. > I do not know if /etc/lsb-release is suitably generic -- I've tried it > only on a few platforms. I do know that executing lsb_release is > suitably generic since it is standard, but I prefer not to try it first > since it imposes about half-a-second delay. lsb_release is standard on LSB compliant Linuxes, but the much older /etc/<distro>-release file approach is still valid and in wide use. E.g. on SuSE, /etc/lsb-release doesn't contain any usable distribution information. On Fedora, that file doesn't exist at all. It's better to follow the approach taken by lsb_release and then add calling lsb_release as one of the methods taken by _dist_try_harder() (using platform.popen()) should the parsers fail. This avoids spawning a process in most cases. _______________________________________ Python tracker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://bugs.python.org/issue1322> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
