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 4C98A1FF144 for ; Tue, 24 Mar 2026 12:13:21 +0100 (CET) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 36081C85C; Tue, 24 Mar 2026 12:13:39 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <867329b9-bebe-4c6d-8d0e-3f33e220c235@proxmox.com> Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2026 12:13:05 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Beta Subject: Re: [PATCH proxmox v2 1/8] serde: implement ini serializer To: Christoph Heiss , pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com References: <20260213143601.1424613-1-c.heiss@proxmox.com> <20260213143601.1424613-2-c.heiss@proxmox.com> Content-Language: en-US From: Thomas Lamprecht In-Reply-To: <20260213143601.1424613-2-c.heiss@proxmox.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Bm-Milter-Handled: 55990f41-d878-4baa-be0a-ee34c49e34d2 X-Bm-Transport-Timestamp: 1774350738566 X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL -0.011 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 Message-ID-Hash: KWWGBGP2H5OBYMSFJ4H3YIU33TUAPCFP X-Message-ID-Hash: KWWGBGP2H5OBYMSFJ4H3YIU33TUAPCFP X-MailFrom: t.lamprecht@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 CC: Wolfgang Bumiller 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 13.02.26 um 15:36 schrieb Christoph Heiss: > The official WireGuard tooling wg(8) uses a (mostly) INI-like format > for consuming configuration. > > E.g. `wg syncconf` will be used by in the future by the WireGuard fabric > for applying changes to a particular WireGuard interface. > > One of the quirks of the INI format used by wg(8) are that there can be > multiple sections with the same name, which is also explicitly supported > by this serializer. Any technical reason for this to be in proxmox-serde over a dedicated crate? like proxmox-ini or proxmox-ini-config or the like? proxmox-serde is currently a bit of a mixed bag, but might be better for more for generic serde helper that should be mostly provived by upstream in some ideal world (from our POV). @Wolfgang: any opinion here.