From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <a.zeidler@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 A62DF907CC
 for <pmg-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 24 Jan 2024 16:04:34 +0100 (CET)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 87BC3D222
 for <pmg-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 24 Jan 2024 16:04:34 +0100 (CET)
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 <pmg-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 24 Jan 2024 16:04:33 +0100 (CET)
Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
 by proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 9AAAB415B1
 for <pmg-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 24 Jan 2024 16:04:33 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <31ec4ffcb71bd9241925579535548474df64a4a3.camel@proxmox.com>
From: Alexander Zeidler <a.zeidler@proxmox.com>
To: Stoiko Ivanov <s.ivanov@proxmox.com>
Cc: pmg-devel@lists.proxmox.com
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2024 16:04:16 +0100
In-Reply-To: <Za6rh9P1KQfV9Z_s@rosa.proxmox.com>
References: <20231103135456.120601-1-a.zeidler@proxmox.com>
 <20231103135456.120601-2-a.zeidler@proxmox.com>
 <Za6rh9P1KQfV9Z_s@rosa.proxmox.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
User-Agent: Evolution 3.46.4-2 
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results:  0
 AWL -1.380 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
 SCC_BODY_URI_ONLY       2.899 -
 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 -
Subject: Re: [pmg-devel] [PATCH pmg-docs 2/2] installation: add section
 'Firmware Updates' & repository
X-BeenThere: pmg-devel@lists.proxmox.com
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Proxmox Mail Gateway development discussion
 <pmg-devel.lists.proxmox.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/options/pmg-devel>, 
 <mailto:pmg-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.proxmox.com/pipermail/pmg-devel/>
List-Post: <mailto:pmg-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
List-Help: <mailto:pmg-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pmg-devel>, 
 <mailto:pmg-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2024 15:04:34 -0000

On Mon, 2024-01-22 at 18:53 +0100, Stoiko Ivanov wrote:
> Content-wise this looks very good - thanks!
>=20
> I just wondered if the 'Installation' chapter is the appropriate location
> for this - I'd rather look for it in the 'Administration' chapter.
>=20
> While the same could arguably be said about the p7zip-rar and libclamunra=
r
> installation above - this is just 1 paragraph as opposed to the quite
> detailed documentation in this patch
>=20
> Don't feel too strongly about this - so could go in as is as well - but
> adding it as separate 6.5 under Administration might have some merit
>=20
> What do you think?
Sounds good. Especially since it is partly a recurring manual task.
Thanks, here's v2:
https://lists.proxmox.com/pipermail/pmg-devel/2024-January/002658.html