From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <f.gruenbichler@proxmox.com>
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [212.224.123.68])
(using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)
key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits))
(No client certificate requested)
by lists.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5EA81615F0
for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 26 Jul 2023 09:34:51 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 2E77B1DD7
for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 26 Jul 2023 09:34:21 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (proxmox-new.maurer-it.com
[94.136.29.106])
(using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)
key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits))
(No client certificate requested)
by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS
for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 26 Jul 2023 09:34:20 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
by proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id DADF945300
for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 26 Jul 2023 09:34:19 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2023 09:34:13 +0200
From: Fabian =?iso-8859-1?q?Gr=FCnbichler?= <f.gruenbichler@proxmox.com>
To: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>,
Thomas Lamprecht <t.lamprecht@proxmox.com>
References: <20230718091102.6631-1-f.gruenbichler@proxmox.com>
<20230718091102.6631-2-f.gruenbichler@proxmox.com>
<973161c1-8ad5-4c56-9f5d-1ea8639d00cc@proxmox.com>
In-Reply-To: <973161c1-8ad5-4c56-9f5d-1ea8639d00cc@proxmox.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: astroid/0.16.0 (https://github.com/astroidmail/astroid)
Message-Id: <1690356490.g3ndswdo4j.astroid@yuna.none>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0
AWL 0.070 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address
BAYES_00 -1.9 Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1%
DMARC_MISSING 0.1 Missing DMARC policy
KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment
SPF_HELO_NONE 0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record
SPF_PASS -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record
T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE -0.01 -
URIBL_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to URIBL was blocked. See
http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/DnsBlocklists#dnsbl-block for more
information. [pmg7to8.pm]
Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [PATCH pmg-api] handle pve-kernel -> proxmox-kernel
rename
X-BeenThere: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel.lists.proxmox.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/options/pve-devel>,
<mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.proxmox.com/pipermail/pve-devel/>
List-Post: <mailto:pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
List-Help: <mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel>,
<mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2023 07:34:51 -0000
On July 25, 2023 5:06 pm, Thomas Lamprecht wrote:
> On 18/07/2023 11:10, Fabian Gr=C3=BCnbichler wrote:
>=20
>> diff --git a/src/PMG/CLI/pmg7to8.pm b/src/PMG/CLI/pmg7to8.pm
>> index 85e9f16..8cccde1 100644
>> --- a/src/PMG/CLI/pmg7to8.pm
>> +++ b/src/PMG/CLI/pmg7to8.pm
>> @@ -193,7 +193,7 @@ sub check_pmg_packages {
>> }
>> =20
>> # FIXME: better differentiate between 6.2 from bullseye or bookworm
>> - my ($krunning, $kinstalled) =3D (qr/6\.(?:2\.(?:[2-9]\d+|1[6-8]|1\d\d+=
)|5)[^~]*$/, 'pve-kernel-6.2');
>> + my ($krunning, $kinstalled) =3D (qr/6\.(?:2\.(?:[2-9]\d+|1[6-8]|1\d\d+=
)|5)[^~]*$/, 'proxmox-kernel-6.2');
>=20
> this looses backwards compat though?
>=20
> Makes update harder as we need to coordinate closely moving packages arou=
nd..
> Same for PBS and PVE.
this ('$kinstalled') is the package that should be installed after the
upgrade has happened (for the non-upgraded case, we check for
pve-kernel-5.15). technically it means that yes, we should move
proxmox-mailgateway (which transitively depends on the renamed kernel
pacakges) and pmg-api at the same time through the repos.
that's why I noted that
> the proxmox-mailgateway meta package could get a versioned dep on
> pmg-api with this change, but it's not strictly required.
in this patch (and the other similar ones for their respective meta
package).
the only thing that breaks if we don't do that is this check here
complaining if
- pmg-api moved faster than the renamed kernel packages (or for some
reason, a partial upgrade was done)
- *and* the running kernel version is an unexpected one (upgraded, but not
yet rebooted, or some other non-standard setup)
it still rightfully complains, but with the wrong message..