I'm writing a generic installer for a project, and want to set up things like the registry or system.d depending on the OS type. Is there an environment string, or a function to report what OS the system being hosted on, or do I need to write different versions specifically for the OS?

-Chris

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.lazarus.freepascal.org/pipermail/lazarus/attachments/20110731/14f358b6/attachment.html>

2011/7/31 Chris Kelling

you have the macros of WINDOWS, UNIX, LINUX etc... {$IFDEF WINDOWS} ...

Please note that system.d is Fedora implementation (v15) so for Linux you need to detect also the Linux distro, and that's a bit more complicated.

/etc/issue Can help, but also /etc/redhat /etc/debian etc.. can also help you to figure out what distro it is, but that will work only on specific distro's as well.

Ido

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.lazarus.freepascal.org/pipermail/lazarus/attachments/20110731/3bfd5012/attachment.html>

2011/7/31 ik :

Please note that system.d is Fedora implementation (v15) so for Linux you need to detect also the Linux distro, and that's a bit more complicated.

Any distro worth using should support the LSB standards. With that being said, you can use the 'lsb_release' command to find out exactly what distribution and version is being used.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------- $ lsb_release --help
Usage: lsb_release [options]

Options:
-h, --help show this help message and exit -v, --version show LSB modules this system supports -i, --id show distributor ID
-d, --description show description of this distribution -r, --release show release number of this distribution -c, --codename show code name of this distribution -a, --all show all of the above information -s, --short show all of the above information in short format

$ lsb_release -a
No LSB modules are available.
Distributor ID: Ubuntu
Description: Ubuntu 8.04.4 LTS
Release: 8.04
Codename: hardy

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

I'm using Arch Linux and that is my output:

------------------------
$ lsb_release
LSB Version: n/a

$
-------------------------

But I have the following file:
/etc/arch-release

I think that looking for /etc/*release is more reliable at the moment for distros.

BTW The TRegistry class is cross platform. On Windows it uses Registry, and on other OS, it uses INI files.

Ido

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.lazarus.freepascal.org/pipermail/lazarus/attachments/20110731/3492b2c9/attachment-0001.html>

Thank you for the suggestions so far -

$ lsb_release seems to give good information, my Fedora 15 machine returns

LSB Version: :core-4.0-ia32:core-4,0-noarch

In addition, I did a ls of the /etc directory and found a file called system-release-cpe, Looking in it says cpe:/o:fedoraproject:fedora:15

Now, this may be unique to fedora (isn't open source wonderful?), but if all distros have that file, I think that may be the solution, I've got an ubuntu machine running, too - I should look to see what it has.

Say what you will about the windows registry, but at least there's a common place to look for and put information. And no, I don't want to start a war over the merits of one OS over another, just trying to make my program portable to the most machines with the least effort for the end user.

_____

2011/7/31 ik :

Under Ubuntu 8.04 the 'lsb_release' command on it's own doesn't give any usable output either. You need to specify a parameter.

eg: $ lsb_release -a

See 'lsb_release --help' for more available options. As shown below:

2011/7/31 Chris Kelling :

$ lsb_release seems to give good information, my Fedora 15 machine returns LSB Version:???? :core-4.0-ia32:core-4,0-noarch

Specify some of the other parameters in the 'lsb_release' command and you will get the exact information your are looking for, on any distro that supports LSB standard.

Say what you will about the windows registry, but at least there?s a common place to look for and put information.

Well yes, it's very easy if you own the OS and there is just one or two controlled version of that OS. This applies both to Microsoft and Apple. The benefit of closed source OS's. If you want to apply the same principle, then you need to compare various Ubuntu releases to each other.

The LSB (Linux Standards Base) and the FreeDesktop.org standards are trying to make all distros more compliant with a set of standards - making the life of any ISV and lone software developer MUCH easier. LSB and FreeDesktop.org are supported by most mainstream distros (for years already). If your distro doesn't, use something better, or email the maintainers of that distro and demand better standardization.

Have you tried uname?
This works on virtually all unix platforms. Here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uname you'll find a sample output given by different unix flavors.
My Fedora 13 64bit gives for uname -r : 2.6.34.7-56.fc13.x86_64

lsb_release on ubuntu 10 64 bit says: no LSB modules are available. On debian lenny for arm: command not found...

uname -m gives you also the cpu the os is running on which is also important for porting a program.

Ludo

2011/7/31 Ludo Brands :

Have you tried uname?

That only gives you the kernel version.

lsb_release on ubuntu 10 64 bit says: no LSB modules are available. On debian lenny for arm: command not found...

Don't you guys READ!!! I specifically showed the parameters you need to specify with the 'lsb_release' command so you DO GET THE RIGHT OUTPUT.

Try this:

   $ lsb_release -a

Or from my original post...

$ lsb_release -a
LSB Version: n/a
Distributor ID: n/a
Description: (none)
Release: n/a
Codename: n/a

It is missing from some implementations. Arch Linux (my distro) is spread and not a small based distro, so lsb is not the way, only LSB based distro's are.

But the original person that asked the question should explain better what he is looking for. It might not require to detect the distro itself for example, or to allow the package builder to tweak things, or at the first run to ask the distro from a list of supported distro and save it in configuration files.

It's all depends on what he requires to do.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.lazarus.freepascal.org/pipermail/lazarus/attachments/20110731/aa0549cb/attachment.html>

I am looking to distribute my software to pc, linux, unix, and mac users. I'm using the registry in Windows, and was going to use systemd for linux.

From what I'm gathering, it would be best to just do a simple config or ini

file in the root directory of the program. I'm thinking that when creating the installer, I will ask where the program will reside, and provide a default that is platform independent. That way all I need to do is provide the deb or rpm for linux, the msi for windows, and what ever unix and apple require (OS X is a flavor of Darwin, thus the debain packager maybe?)

_____

2011/7/31 Chris Kelling

You are thinking it wrong IMHO.
1. FPC's TRegistry handle that for you
2. In non Windows machines, you save custom settings in the home directory of the users. Mostly under a hidden directory with the program name.
3. System.d is a process boot system and not a system configuration saving
4. GTK have central setting system caled gconf, it was built in the idea of registry like system. Qt does not have one.
5. Each package for specific Linux distro solve you the requirement to understand in the program what is the exact distro. You can even hard code that data using IFDEF and use FPC to compile using the proper DEFINE (I wish there would be a better tool for that though).

6. OS X is based on FreeBSD (open source unix) and not Linux. Darwin is an engine inside OS-X.
7. OS-X have it's own package manager that use sit and dmg files (I don't really know Mac that well to fully expand it).

Ido

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.lazarus.freepascal.org/pipermail/lazarus/attachments/20110731/65ebc046/attachment-0001.html>

Yes, you are definily doing it wrong.
You shouldn't even have a installer for Linux. Programs in Linux with installers are just weird... Let the package manager do what a installer would do for you (you can have custom scripts in the package manager if that's strictly necessary, but it shouldn't).

On Mac, the most elegant install solution IMHO is to simply copy the Application Bundle to the /Applications folder and that is it. No install necessary, any configuration necessary is created the first time the application runs.
But if you really must have a installer for MacOSX I recommend creating a package for MacOSX default installer application. Again you just package everything with a few scripts and that is it.

Badilly written custom installer applications is a Windows thing and I'm happy that I don't need to bother with them anymore...

Debian arm: lsb_release: not found. That is even with -a.

Fedora 13: fresh installation: not found, also not found with -a

How many -a do I need to add?

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=fedora+lsb_release&l=1

Ludo

Graeme Geldenhuys wrote

The LSB (Linux Standards Base) and the FreeDesktop.org standards aretrying to make all distros more compliant with a set of standards -making the life of any ISV and lone software developer MUCH easier.LSB and FreeDesktop.org are supported by most mainstream distros (foryears already). If your distro doesn't, use something better, or emailthe maintainers of that distro and demand better standardization.

An older servo distro we've got around here has neither lsb_release nor the xdg utilities, I've not checked either of the Solaris systems. Looking at machines in my workroom, all of the Debians currently running have both, except for one Lenny which doesn't have lsb_release- other Lennies have it.

So while the utilities are undoubtedly useful and underused, it's clearly important to have some sort of fallback if they turn out not to be available.

Looks like a platform thing as far as Lenny goes. Not on ARM, not on x86, is on SPARC. Not tried others CPUs or versions. Not tried recent Slackware which is the only other Linux to hand. Not tried Solaris (8 or 10).

/If/ available, it looks useful. However the fact that one major distro doesn't uniformly include it emphasises that there has to be a fallback position, same applies to xdg*

Not installed by default on Fedora 15:

[marcov at atlas ~]$ lsb_release
bash: lsb_release: command not found...

so you can't really rely on it. Apparently the standard is optional.

2011/7/31 ik :

OK, my apologies. It's just that if I run the 'lsb_release' command on it's own with no parameters, I too get useless information - even from Ubuntu 8.04

 $ lsb_release
No LSB modules are available.

.... and everybody (including you) replied quoting that 'lsb_release' (without parameters) doesn't return usable results.

It's all depends on what he requires to do.

Indeed.

2011/7/31 Chris Kelling :

I am looking to distribute my software to pc, linux, unix, and mac users. I?m using the registry in Windows, and was going to use systemd for linux.

Use the RTL function GetAppConfigDir(True) - this will normally return '/etc' under Linux and any Unix system. GetAppConfigDir(False) will return a directory that is writable for any normal user (no admin or root rights required).

Also take a look at GetAppConfigFile(). This might even be better than the above mentioned function.

I did say "a distro worth using". ;-) Just kidding.

But thanks to all that replied regarding the lsb command. Clearly the various Linux distros still need to work on "standardization".

same with Suse.

-Michael

It works in Mandriva Linux:

[felipe at localhost fpvectorial]$ lsb_release -a
LSB Version:
lsb-4.0-ia32:lsb-4.0-noarch:core-3.0-ia32:core-3.0-noarch:core-3.2-ia32:core-3.2-noarch:core-4.0-ia32:core-4.0-noarch:cxx-3.2-ia32:cxx-3.2-noarch:graphics-3.2-ia32:graphics-3.2-noarch:lsb-3.0-ia32:lsb-3.0-noarch:lsb-3.2-ia32:lsb-3.2-noarch:lsb-4.0-ia32:lsb-4.0-noarch Distributor ID: MandrivaLinux
Description: Mandriva Linux 2010.1
Release: 2010.1
Codename: Henry_Farman

Felipe Monteiro de Carvalho wrote

It works in Mandriva Linux: [felipe at localhost fpvectorial]$ lsb_release -a

Of course

lsb_release -a

does work with Suse as well, only without a parameter it issues a n/a.

-Michael

Noting your earlier comments on both lsb_release and xdg-open, the first thing I'd say is that it strikes me that xdg-open is specifically a desktop-related program, i.e. it might not be installed on "headless" systems. Taking that into account, I thought it worth taking a closer look at a number of systems.

Slackware x86 8.1 with desktop: neither lsb_release nor xdg-open.

Slackware x86 13.37 with desktop: no lsb_release, does have xdg-open.

Debian armel Lenny headless: neither lsb_release nor xdg-open.

Debian armel Lenny with desktop: neither lsb_release nor xdg-open.

Debian armel Squeeze with desktop: has lsb_release, no xdg-open.

Debian mipsel Squeeze with desktop: has lsb_release, no xdg-open.

Debian zSeries Lenny with desktop: neither lsb_release nor xdg-open.

Debian x86 Lenny with desktop: neither lsb_release nor xdg-open.

Debian x86 Squeeze with desktop: both lsb_release and xdg-open.

Debian SPARC Etch with desktop: both lsb_release and xdg-open.

Debian SPARC Lenny with desktop: both lsb_release and xdg-open.

Solaris (8 and 10) have neither lsb_release nor xdg-open as standard. Same probably applies to BSD.

I find this particularly disappointing since I've used and recommended xdg-open in the past, on the assumption that since it had appeared in some distreax and versions it would fairly rapidly be adopted by all. Mea culpa.

Debian can be recognised by the presence of /etc/apt/sources.list, and any version that's likely to be encountered will have the release name in the URLs it contains (older ones referenced 'stable' etc.).

Can somebody confirm this for Ubuntu? Are there comparable files for other distreax?

Mark Morgan Lloyd wrote

Solaris (8 and 10) have neither lsb_release nor xdg-open as standard. Same probably applies to BSD.

:-) That doesn't come as a surprise considering that they are "Linux" Standards Base.

xdg-open in the past, on the assumption that since it had appeared in some distreax and versions it would fairly rapidly be adopted by all. Mea culpa.

+1
I can't believe that distros in today's time still make it so hard for ISV's to write common (as in distro) desktop applications. Clearly Linux based system just don't want to compete with the likes of Mac OSX and Windows. Maybe we should all jump ship to Haiku.

Can somebody confirm this for Ubuntu? Are there comparable files for other distreax?

Both my Ubuntu 8.04.4 and Ubuntu 10.04.3 systems have the lsb_release and the xdg-open commands available. So I guess that's +1 to Canonical for at least trying to be helpful!

Regards,
- Graeme -

I've just come across its being announced on the Debian ML, circa 2000. Somebody immediately pointed out that it was curious that the copyright had been assigned to the FSF rather than to the LSB project itself.

So it looks as though lsb_release is potentially a useful tool, but is not actually part of the LSB standard.

http://lists.debian.org/lsb-discuss/2000/09/msg00004.html

Yes, but for cases where lsb_release might not work- e.g. an older release- does apt/sources.list refer to a section of their repository by name or simply as "stable" etc.?

These parts are not terribly linux specific, and deal with desktop systems that are commonly used on BSD too. The "Linux" part is more branding between the big commercial desktops than that it is about operating systems.

Of course, due to Linux' fragmentation, the standards are most needed on Linux too :-)

Linux unification is IMHO further away then in the 1997-2000 timeframe.

Marco van de Voort wrote

Of course, due to Linux' fragmentation, the standards are most needed on Linux too :-)

Very true, and I see Linux fragmentation become more and more of a problem. Many people would like to move off Windows for all kinds of reasons, it's just that the thousands of Linux distros just don't seem to want that business. Go figure!

Luckily we are in a franchising business, so we can control out deployment OS with some control. We motivate our franchisees to use Ubuntu if they decide to go the Linux route. At least that way our support staff can help them for free.

Linux unification is IMHO further away then in the 1997-2000 timeframe.

I agree. Some things have improved, but others have not. And with every Tom, Dick and Harry wanting his own "distro" doesn't help the cause much.

Regards,
- Graeme -

It's particularly disappointing in the case of the xdg* utilities, which are supposed to be applicable to any unix system with a mainstream desktop. Hell, they could even be shimmed onto Windows.

Funny to hear this from someone who rolls his own GUI toolkit instead of using the LCL :-)

Michael.

apt/sources.list for my ubuntu 10.04 64 bit refers to fe.

deb http://us.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/ lucid-security main restricted

Kubuntu (ubuntu with KDE desktop) 10.04 32 bit and Xubuntu 10.04 (with XFCE4) point to the same repositories.

From older versions, I remember similar names containing ubuntu and the

codename (hardy, dapper, etc).

Ludo

So with luck Ubuntu will either have lsb_release on newer systems, or a codename embedded in apt/sources.list on older ones.

All bets are off if access is through a proxy with non-standard names.

Michael Van Canneyt wrote

Funny to hear this from someone who rolls his own GUI toolkit instead of using the LCL :-)

Yeah, yeah. :) I think we can safely say there is a huge difference in project scale. "whole OS" vs "gui toolkit".

Regards,
- Graeme -

just out of curiosity
is
cat /etc/*-release

working?

$ cat /etc/*-release
DISTRIB_ID=Ubuntu
DISTRIB_RELEASE=10.04
DISTRIB_CODENAME=lucid
DISTRIB_DESCRIPTION="Ubuntu 10.04.3 LTS"

Regards,
- Graeme -

Suse: yep.

I can contribute this:

Angstom (ARM distribution)

no cat /etc/*-release, no lsb-release, but

root at da850-omapl138-evm:~# lsb_release -a
Distributor ID: Angstrom
Description: Angstrom GNU/Linux 2011.03 (Dureza) Release: 2011.03
Codename: Dureza

-Michel

On ubuntu 4.10 (first ubuntu release) lsb_release was already installed by default.

Ludo

We motivate our customers to use Ubuntu if they decide to go the Linux route. (2)

2011/8/1 Graeme Geldenhuys

On e.g. x86 Lenny, no. Sorry I can't test in much more detail right now- gto problems.

here, on a "sligthly" old Fedora 7:

cat /etc/*-release gives the following:

Fedora release 7 (Moonshine)

and lsb_release -a (of course, we ask for "-a" to have a handful of information...) gives:

LSB Version:
:core-3.1-ia32:core-3.1-noarch:graphics-3.1-ia32:graphics-3.1-noarch

Distributor ID: Fedora
Description: Fedora release 7 (Moonshine)
Release: 7
Codename: Moonshine

both installed by default. And we are talking about something at least 3.5 years old... go figure.

Just my 2c.

Cheers, A.

Debian Lenny on Slug:

no cat /etc/*-release, no lsb-release, , no lsb_release

-Michael
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.lazarus.freepascal.org/pipermail/lazarus/attachments/20110802/1d5b494e/attachment.html>