From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [212.224.123.68]) by lore.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A2F871FF183 for ; Wed, 30 Jul 2025 15:30:12 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id EECD8EFED; Wed, 30 Jul 2025 15:31:37 +0200 (CEST) Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2025 15:30:55 +0200 From: Fabian =?iso-8859-1?q?Gr=FCnbichler?= To: Proxmox Backup Server development discussion , Stefan Hanreich , Thomas Lamprecht References: <20250729165655.681368-1-s.hanreich@proxmox.com> <20250729165655.681368-9-s.hanreich@proxmox.com> <2367bf22-edcf-4798-8acd-8cd8dd91e4c6@proxmox.com> <9f8d73c7-2a54-4a6f-8015-7dde997d36e4@proxmox.com> In-Reply-To: <9f8d73c7-2a54-4a6f-8015-7dde997d36e4@proxmox.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: astroid/0.16.0 (https://github.com/astroidmail/astroid) Message-Id: <1753882075.ft5uga1dqu.astroid@yuna.none> X-Bm-Milter-Handled: 55990f41-d878-4baa-be0a-ee34c49e34d2 X-Bm-Transport-Timestamp: 1753882247498 X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.046 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 RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_CERTIFIED_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to Validity was blocked. See https://knowledge.validity.com/hc/en-us/articles/20961730681243 for more information. RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_RPBL_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to Validity was blocked. See https://knowledge.validity.com/hc/en-us/articles/20961730681243 for more information. RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_SAFE_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to Validity was blocked. See https://knowledge.validity.com/hc/en-us/articles/20961730681243 for more information. SPF_HELO_NONE 0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record SPF_PASS -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record Subject: Re: [pbs-devel] [PATCH proxmox-network-interface-pinning 1/1] initial commit X-BeenThere: pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Proxmox Backup Server development discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Reply-To: Proxmox Backup Server development discussion Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: pbs-devel-bounces@lists.proxmox.com Sender: "pbs-devel" On July 30, 2025 3:24 pm, Thomas Lamprecht wrote: > Am 30.07.25 um 15:14 schrieb Stefan Hanreich: >> On 7/30/25 3:07 PM, Thomas Lamprecht wrote: >>> Am 29.07.25 um 18:57 schrieb Stefan Hanreich: >>>> + // This is run on a PVE host, so we use the PVE-specific pinning tool instead with the >>>> + // parameters supplied. >>>> + if std::fs::exists("/usr/bin/proxmox-network-interface-pinning")? { >>> >>> Hmm, why does this here live in libexec if it's intended to be the main one? >>> >>> Should we rather move the one from pve-manager into libexec with a product >>> specific name like "pve-network-interface-pinning" and keep this here in >>> bin with the generic name? As otherwise one needs to use the full libexec >>> path when using this on PBS/PMG/PDM? Or what's the idea here? >> >> Yes, that sounds better, so the pve-manager one into >> >> /usr/libexec/proxmox/pve-network-interface-pinning >> >> and this one into >> >> /usr/bin/proxmox-network-interface-pinning >> >> Or even sbin? > > bin an sbin will be probably merged in a future major release anyway as > systemd pushes for doing so, so that doesn't really matters. > >> >> I assume, we would then install the standalone package by default in PVE? > > That's the only small "ugliness" there is with this approach, as it would > not be required per se. > > The alternative I see is that both life in /usr/bin, either with > "pve" and "proxmox" prefix in the name, respectively, or under the same > name but with conflicts on packaging level and this package here being > added only as Recommended for PBS/PDM/PMG to allow co-installation. > > tbh. I'm not opposed of either variant, CC'in Fabian, maybe he can act > as tie breaker here. I think installing the rust one always is the simplest solution, even if it is basically a wrapper doing nothing except forwarding the invocation on systems with PVE installed. we could also solve this cleanly on the packaging level, but all the variants I can come up with[0] are more involved - and at some point we will probably want to drop the PVE specific one anyway, i.e., when we switch the network config parsing there over to the Rust-based one one it reaches feature parity ;) 0: alternatives preferring the PVE one, diverting by the PVE package, .. _______________________________________________ pbs-devel mailing list pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pbs-devel