[Fusioninventory-devel] lack of consistency for basic system informations

[Guillaume Rousse]

Hello.

I had a look at the kind of informations the various module reports for
top-level elements OSNAME, OSVERSION, OSCOMMENTS. Here is a short
comparaison.

OSNAME:
linux: `lsb_release -d` || f(/etc/release)
macos: f(SysProfile) || Mac OS X || `uname -s`
solaris: `uname -s` `uname -r`
aix: `uname -s` `oslevel`
bsd: $OSNAME || `lsb_release -d`
hpux: HP-UX

OSVERSION:
linux: `uname -r`
bsd: `uname -r'`
macos: f(SysProfile) || `uname -r`
solaris: f(/etc/release)
aix: `oslevel -r`
hpux: `uname -v` `uname -l`

OSCOMMENTS:
linux: `uname -v`
bsd: `uname -v` || f(`sysctl -n kern.version`)
hpux: `uname -r`
aix: Maintenance Level `oslevel -r`
macos: `uname -v`
solaris: `uname -v`

DESCRIPTION:
solaris: `uname -i` `arch -k` `uname -p` HostID=`hostid`

Here are somme comments:
- why should we add version-related informations to OSNAME, such as aix
and solaris case ?
- why should we use variable instead of string for OSNAME, excepted for
the various BSD flavours ?
- HPUX uses uname -v for OSVERSION, while all other systems use uname
-r, and uname -r for OSCOMMENTS, while all other systems use uname -v
- Solaris DESCRIPTION usage is unique, and mix a lot of unrelated
information, I'd rather drop it in favor of a more general
OSARCHITECTURE element
- For linux, if we use distribution name as OSNAME (instead of 'linux),
we should probably use distribution version as OSVERSION (instead of
kernel version)
-- 
BOFH excuse #382:

Someone was smoking in the computer room and set off the halon systems.