Re: uname

Jim Baker <[email protected]>
Newsgroups gmane.comp.lang.jython.devel
Message-ID <CAOhO=aO46f8gaa3a2mSi+mpVGP_hdYBeBWRA-GJs3gC_XvN3GQ@mail.gmail.com>
On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 9:22 AM, Stefan Richthofer <[email protected]
> wrote:

> Hey Jeff,
> thanks for your reply!
>
> I agree that in theory, os.uname and platform.uname should be consistent.
> And also platform.system with uname. However in practice, IMO it would
> cause much less trouble with not-Jython-aware modules if uname would
> provide native info rather than JVM-info. Jython-aware modules can obtain
> JVM-info from platform.java_ver anyway. On the other hand platform.uname
> always returned JVM-info in Jython until now, so there might be
> Jython-aware code out there relying on this.
> So as a compromise I'd suggest to let platform.uname behave like it always
> used to and os.uname provide native info such that non-Jython-aware modules
> have higher chance to work (especially relevant in JyNI; I wouldn't want to
> monkeypatch this!). os.uname should be save for existing Jython-aware
> modules, since it didn't exist at all in Jython prior to 2.7.1.
>

+1, let's make this distinction. Keep os.uname with the new change; and
make platform.uname go back to being Java information. This is why we have
the platform module, vs the os module.

I would keep this distinction for Jython 3.


>
> (It's already a constant pain that os.name is 'java' and Alex Grönholm
> once pointed out in IRC this would switch to CPython behavior in Jython 3.
> IIRC this currently breaks pip in Jython on Windows. Maybe this can be
> fixed with a hack I use in JyNI, but that's rather a story for Jython
> 2.7.2.)
>

Agreed about the constant pain.

If we had the chance to go back in time to fix this for 2.7.0, I would have
made os.name be the underlying OS (eg 'posix' instead of 'java'). The os
module should be about the underlying OS - it mostly is. So definitely we
should fix for Jython 3.

>
> Summary
> If there are no objections I will make
> - os.uname provide native platform info (for practicability)
> - platform.uname provide JVM-info (for backward-compatibility)
> We still need to more confidently decide how os.uname should behave on
> Windows (however keeping current variant shouldn't be too bad I suppose).
>

+1

Supporting os.uname on Windows make sense.

- Jim

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

_______________________________________________
Jython-dev mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jython-dev
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.