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 95A121FF187 for ; Mon, 22 Sep 2025 11:47:10 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id E40E716CD6; Mon, 22 Sep 2025 11:47:39 +0200 (CEST) Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2025 11:47:36 +0200 From: Stoiko Ivanov To: Fiona Ebner Message-ID: <20250922114736.7fbcbdc9@rosa.proxmox.com> In-Reply-To: <91adf303-d6df-4701-9ccf-58476691d9e9@proxmox.com> References: <20250918142052.131956-1-f.ebner@proxmox.com> <20250918142052.131956-4-f.ebner@proxmox.com> <20250918225832.10aa59bf@rosa.proxmox.com> <91adf303-d6df-4701-9ccf-58476691d9e9@proxmox.com> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 4.1.1 (GTK 3.24.38; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Bm-Milter-Handled: 55990f41-d878-4baa-be0a-ee34c49e34d2 X-Bm-Transport-Timestamp: 1758534445098 X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL -0.081 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 POISEN_SPAM_PILL 0.1 Meta: its spam POISEN_SPAM_PILL_1 0.1 random spam to be learned in bayes POISEN_SPAM_PILL_3 0.1 random spam to be learned in bayes SPF_HELO_NONE 0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record SPF_PASS -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record Subject: Re: [pmg-devel] [PATCH pmg-api 3/4] partially fix #2077: pmgsh: remove dependency on Term::ReadLine X-BeenThere: pmg-devel@lists.proxmox.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Proxmox Mail Gateway development discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: pmg-devel@lists.proxmox.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: pmg-devel-bounces@lists.proxmox.com Sender: "pmg-devel" On Fri, 19 Sep 2025 10:41:45 +0200 Fiona Ebner wrote: > Am 18.09.25 um 10:58 PM schrieb Stoiko Ivanov: > > Thanks for tackling this! > > > > applied the patch for pve-common and played around a bit with pmgsh - and > > yes - I did miss the completion (not the history though.. and am not sure > > if I overlooked some other readline feature that would be lost) > > > > but this reminded me of pvesh and that we dropped interactive mode at some > > point (around PVE 5.2) there: > > https://git.proxmox.com/?p=pve-manager.git;a=commitdiff;h=cfc6a662938b90069e6c70b8112021a4554bad27 > > and the rationale of using bash for completion (still) sounds sensible. > > Oh, that dropped the REPL-style interface completely. If we do want to > go ahead with dropping Term::ReadLine for pmgsh, I think we should do > that here too. Dropping the REPL-style interface should be fine - AFAIK `pmgsh` is certainly used by our user-base to script some changes, but I don't expect anyone to use it for daily work (and not being happy of using with bash-completion instead of the REPL) Had a chat with Thomas off-list - and he correctly pointed out that dropping Term::ReadLine as dependency can be a nice2have, but it does not hurt us currently - so there is no rush in getting this in. Fixing #6748 OTOH is something affecting users, and it's also independent of changing pmgsh. So I think it's definitely worth to include 1/2, 2/2 (and the patch for pve-common independent of whether or not we bring changes from pvesh to pmgsh) > > > did not look closer at what pmgsh is still missing from pvesh (the latter > > saw quite a bit more changes in the past years) - but currently this seems > > to be a good alternative. > > (I'm not sure if I'll get to checking this in the upcoming 1-2 weeks, but > > could try if you are busy elsewhere and noone else steps up) > > Do you have an example for what (potential) features you have in mind > here? Or just looking through all pvesh changes and see what would be > nice to have for pmgsh too? was thinking about looking at the pvesh changes - but from a quick look one example is `get /nodes//journal` (it returns an array and we don't handle that yet in pmgsh). This would all mostly be improvements to the current status - the one thing that I'd consider a regression with your patch vs. w/o is the lack of completion. > > > FWIW - tried registering an acme account (patch 1/4) - also worked fine. > > Would you mind adding a T-b there :)? sent for 1/4, 2/4 and the pve-common patch :) _______________________________________________ pmg-devel mailing list pmg-devel@lists.proxmox.com https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pmg-devel