From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [IPv6:2a01:7e0:0:424::9]) by lore.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6E8071FF13E for ; Fri, 06 Feb 2026 16:04:09 +0100 (CET) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id E32E079A7; Fri, 6 Feb 2026 16:04:41 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <69339b38-298a-4caa-9c85-030c43aaa938@proxmox.com> Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2026 16:04:07 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: [PATCH container v2 3/4] setup: add no-op detect_architecture for unmanaged CTs To: Thomas Lamprecht , Daniel Kral , pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com References: <20260206124513.310674-1-d.kral@proxmox.com> <20260206124513.310674-4-d.kral@proxmox.com> <5a6b230c-0de8-4e99-959d-55c4649f0d85@proxmox.com> Content-Language: en-US From: Fiona Ebner In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Bm-Milter-Handled: 55990f41-d878-4baa-be0a-ee34c49e34d2 X-Bm-Transport-Timestamp: 1770390168398 X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL -0.015 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 Message-ID-Hash: DTT7JMOPHQZHHHJTWXP777WZYEIJGCAA X-Message-ID-Hash: DTT7JMOPHQZHHHJTWXP777WZYEIJGCAA X-MailFrom: f.ebner@proxmox.com X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; loop; banned-address; emergency; member-moderation; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.10 Precedence: list List-Id: Proxmox VE development discussion List-Help: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Am 06.02.26 um 3:28 PM schrieb Thomas Lamprecht: > Am 06.02.26 um 14:08 schrieb Fiona Ebner: >>> +sub detect_architecture { >>> + my ($self) = @_; >>> + return; >> Thinking through it again, should we rather just die here instead of >> returning undef? It seems to me that the contract for the method is >> currently "either return the detected architecture or die". Then patch > > That description of the contract is not correct, for normal os types > it fails if the arch could not be detected, for unmanaged this should > not be the case, as we never can detect it there by design, and returning > undef is more correct as of now. Since there is no documentation, I took 'contract' to be "the current behavior and expectation of the use sites". But changing this is fine by me too. > >> 4/4 would not be needed. Your new implementation adds a "or return >> undef" to the contract making it more complicated. >