# Archlinux OS Family issue **URL:** \ **Category:** Ansible Project\ **Created:** [July 21, 2017, 4:32pm UTC](https://forum.ansible.com/t/archlinux-os-family-issue/25048 "2017-07-21T16:32:16Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 9\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![mdl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b38774/32.png) [@mdl](https://forum.ansible.com/u/mdl)\ **Post date:** [July 21, 2017, 4:32pm UTC](https://forum.ansible.com/t/archlinux-os-family-issue/25048/1 "2017-07-21T16:32:16Z")
I’m testing Ansible roles with Archlinux and one of them uses ansible\_os\_family to include variables or tasks. So I have: ` - name: include OS vars include\_vars: “{{ ansible\_os\_family }}.yml” when: ansible\_os\_family == ‘Archlinux’ ` Problem is that ansible\_os\_family gets ‘Arch Linux’ as value, so ansible looks for ‘Arch Linux.yml’ but filename is actually ‘Archlinux.yml’, just capital A and no spaces. I know this is not a fancy bug or anything, I’ve been looking at ansible code and GitHub issues but only found OS\_FAMILY\_MAP ([Code here](https://github.com/ansible/ansible/blob/devel/lib/ansible/module_utils/facts/system/distribution.py)) and Arch seems to be defined as ‘Archlinux’ but never ‘Arch Linux’. Could anyone guide me because I do not know if something changed with /etc/os-release in Archlinux or maybe a bug needs to be reported to update variables like OS\_FAMILY\_MAP. Thanks in advance. ---
**Author:** ![Mathias\_Ettinger](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d6d6ee/32.png) [@Mathias\_Ettinger](https://forum.ansible.com/u/Mathias_Ettinger)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2017, 1:18pm UTC](https://forum.ansible.com/t/archlinux-os-family-issue/25048/2 "2017-07-24T13:18:13Z")
Using ansible 2.3.1.0 and the following playbook: - hosts: localhost tasks: - debug: msg={{ vars }} I get, amongst others: “ansible\_os\_family”: “Archlinux”, and “ansible\_distribution”: “Archlinux”, What version are you using? ---
**Author:** ![mdl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b38774/32.png) [@mdl](https://forum.ansible.com/u/mdl)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2017, 1:37pm UTC](https://forum.ansible.com/t/archlinux-os-family-issue/25048/3 "2017-07-24T13:37:34Z")
Thank you so much for your reply Mathias. Version: `me@host ~> ansible --version 2 ansible 2.4.0 config file = /etc/ansible/ansible.cfg configured module search path = [u'/home/me/.ansible/plugins/modules', u'/usr/share/ansible/plugins/modules'] ansible python module location = /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/ansible executable location = /usr/bin/ansible python version = 2.7.13 (default, Feb 11 2017, 12:22:40) [GCC 6.3.1 20170109]` I just tried your example playbook in my computer and got: ` me@host ~/Ansible\> cat /etc/os-release NAME=“Arch Linux” PRETTY\_NAME=“Arch Linux” ID=arch ID\_LIKE=archlinux ANSI\_COLOR=“0;36” HOME\_URL=“[https://www.archlinux.org/](https://www.archlinux.org/)” SUPPORT\_URL=“[https://bbs.archlinux.org/](https://bbs.archlinux.org/)” BUG\_REPORT\_URL=“[https://bugs.archlinux.org/](https://bugs.archlinux.org/)” me@host ~/Ansible\> ansible-playbook arch-test.yml | grep ansible\_os “ansible\_os\_family”: “Arch Linux”, “ansible\_os\_family”: “Arch Linux”, “ansible\_os\_family”: “Arch Linux”, “ansible\_os\_family”: “Arch Linux”, ` Is version 2.4.0 to blame here? ---
**Author:** ![Mathias\_Ettinger](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d6d6ee/32.png) [@Mathias\_Ettinger](https://forum.ansible.com/u/Mathias_Ettinger)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2017, 2:07pm UTC](https://forum.ansible.com/t/archlinux-os-family-issue/25048/4 "2017-07-24T14:07:14Z")
Got the same output using ansible 2.4: “ansible\_distribution”: “Arch Linux”, “ansible\_distribution\_file\_parsed”: true, “ansible\_distribution\_file\_path”: “/etc/os-release”, “ansible\_distribution\_file\_variety”: “NA”, “ansible\_distribution\_major\_version”: “NA”, “ansible\_distribution\_release”: “NA”, “ansible\_distribution\_version”: “NA”, the “ansible\_distribution\_file\_path” is new from 2.3 and may be the source of the infos instead of hardcoded ones, hence “Arch Linux” ---
**Author:** ![mdl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b38774/32.png) [@mdl](https://forum.ansible.com/u/mdl)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2017, 2:27pm UTC](https://forum.ansible.com/t/archlinux-os-family-issue/25048/5 "2017-07-24T14:27:59Z")
I saw [this](https://github.com/ansible/ansible/pull/15675) issue at GitHub where people requested to get Archlinux detection from /etc/os-release. It seems to be related to this. What’s the best way to address this with the Ansible team? It’s not a big issue but having no spaces in distribution or family name is a good practice. Thanks for your help, it’s nice to know the root of the ‘problem’. ---
**Author:** ![Mathias\_Ettinger](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d6d6ee/32.png) [@Mathias\_Ettinger](https://forum.ansible.com/u/Mathias_Ettinger)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2017, 2:54pm UTC](https://forum.ansible.com/t/archlinux-os-family-issue/25048/6 "2017-07-24T14:54:34Z")
I compared the source codes between 2.3 and 2.4, it seems to me that the check at [https://github.com/ansible/ansible/blob/stable-2.3/lib/ansible/module\_utils/facts.py#L729-L731](https://github.com/ansible/ansible/blob/stable-2.3/lib/ansible/module_utils/facts.py#L729-L731) is not present something like here [https://github.com/ansible/ansible/blob/devel/lib/ansible/module\_utils/facts/system/distribution.py#L171](https://github.com/ansible/ansible/blob/devel/lib/ansible/module_utils/facts/system/distribution.py#L171) and since no “parse\_distribution\_file\_Archlinux” method is present, it goes all the way down to “parse\_distribution\_file\_NA” which just plain reads /etc/os-release. Maybe it’s time to implement such method for custom logic, or stick to the ‘allowempty’ trick. I also tryed manually applying the fix provided in #15675 and got the desired output: “ansible\_distribution”: “Archlinux”, “ansible\_distribution\_file\_parsed”: true, “ansible\_distribution\_file\_path”: “/etc/os-release”, “ansible\_distribution\_file\_variety”: “Archlinux”, “ansible\_distribution\_major\_version”: “NA”, “ansible\_distribution\_release”: “NA”, “ansible\_distribution\_version”: “NA”, so maybe just update this PR instead (or #22949) to modify the right file? ---
**Author:** ![alikins](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/d07c76/32.png) [@alikins](https://forum.ansible.com/u/alikins)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2017, 3:37pm UTC](https://forum.ansible.com/t/archlinux-os-family-issue/25048/7 "2017-07-24T15:37:50Z")
Analysis sounds correct to me, but would like to clarify the expected result: For a system with /etc/os-release of: NAME=“Arch Linux” PRETTY\_NAME=“Arch Linux” ID=arch ID\_LIKE=archlinux ANSI\_COLOR=“0;36” HOME\_URL=“[https://www.archlinux.org/](https://www.archlinux.org/)” SUPPORT\_URL=“[https://bbs.archlinux.org/](https://bbs.archlinux.org/)” BUG\_REPORT\_URL=“[https://bugs.archlinux.org/](https://bugs.archlinux.org/)” The desired value for ‘ansible\_os\_family’ is ‘Archlinux’ ? And for the other distro facts: “ansible\_distribution”: “Archlinux”, “ansible\_distribution\_file\_parsed”: true, “ansible\_distribution\_file\_path”: “/etc/os-release”, “ansible\_distribution\_file\_variety”: “Archlinux”, “ansible\_distribution\_major\_version”: “NA”, “ansible\_distribution\_release”: “NA”, “ansible\_distribution\_version”: “NA”, What is the background for the values in /etc/os-release being different than the desired values (‘Arch Linux’ vs ‘Archlinux’) ? The description at [https://github.com/ansible/ansible/pull/15675#issue-151988680](https://github.com/ansible/ansible/pull/15675#issue-151988680) claims: “systemd is a first class citizen in Arch Linux variants and thus /etc/os-release will always have the right info [1]. We don’t need to rely on /etc/arch-release and allowempty workaround.” Is that correct? If so, sounds like just need to rebase [https://github.com/ansible/ansible/pull/15675](https://github.com/ansible/ansible/pull/15675) or [https://github.com/ansible/ansible/pull/22949](https://github.com/ansible/ansible/pull/22949) again. ---
**Author:** ![Brian\_Coca](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/6de8d8/32.png) [@Brian\_Coca](https://forum.ansible.com/u/Brian_Coca)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2017, 3:43pm UTC](https://forum.ansible.com/t/archlinux-os-family-issue/25048/8 "2017-07-24T15:43:44Z")
> >       "systemd is a first class citizen in Arch Linux variants and thus /etc/os-release will always have the right info [1]. We don't need to rely on /etc/arch-release and allowempty workaround." > Is that correct? No, we have encountered systems that did not conform to that statement. They might be old, but not everyone can update/upgrade at same pace (even with rolling release distros). ---
**Author:** ![mdl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b38774/32.png) [@mdl](https://forum.ansible.com/u/mdl)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2017, 1:53pm UTC](https://forum.ansible.com/t/archlinux-os-family-issue/25048/9 "2017-07-25T13:53:27Z")
Thanks for your replies and for taking the time. Adrian, I did not understand what you meant for background when it comes to values being different, I’m sorry. I’m asking now you and Mathias as I’m in the dark here: should I update [#22949](https://github.com/ansible/ansible/pull/22949) with a report of what’s been discussed in this thread or should I rebase following [ansible guide](http://docs.ansible.com/ansible/latest/dev_guide/developing_rebasing.html)? I’m no developer but I understand the changes stated in PR #22949. I really don’t want to screw something up or do something dumb due my lack of experience.