From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <t.lamprecht@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) server-digest SHA256)
 (No client certificate requested)
 by lists.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7F41878D27
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Mon,  3 May 2021 07:22:07 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 6A9D31976E
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Mon,  3 May 2021 07:21:37 +0200 (CEST)
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) server-digest SHA256)
 (No client certificate requested)
 by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS id C86381975D
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Mon,  3 May 2021 07:21:35 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
 by proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 98003427DC;
 Mon,  3 May 2021 07:21:29 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <87890f20-2924-fa20-58cc-98810668914c@proxmox.com>
Date: Mon, 3 May 2021 07:21:28 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:89.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/89.0
Content-Language: en-US
To: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>,
 Samuel Lorch <sam@lorch.net>
References: <e9a9874b577c12800900e01258d6c7ae40f98e13.camel@odiso.com>
 <01609953-b676-7b07-ff9f-ba3ae4f3312c@lorch.net>
From: Thomas Lamprecht <t.lamprecht@proxmox.com>
In-Reply-To: <01609953-b676-7b07-ff9f-ba3ae4f3312c@lorch.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results:  0
 AWL 0.005 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address
 KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment
 NICE_REPLY_A           -0.001 Looks like a legit reply (A)
 SPF_HELO_NONE           0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record
 SPF_PASS               -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record
Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [pve-manager] sdn: Adding phpIPAM as IPAM provider
X-BeenThere: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel.lists.proxmox.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/options/pve-devel>, 
 <mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.proxmox.com/pipermail/pve-devel/>
List-Post: <mailto:pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
List-Help: <mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel>, 
 <mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 03 May 2021 05:22:07 -0000

Hi,

On 02.05.21 20:49, Samuel Lorch wrote:
> would it be possible to write Custom Plugins without recompiling any Proxmox Packages?
> 

There's already patches for that on the list, so that is planned:
https://lists.proxmox.com/pipermail/pve-devel/2021-April/047999.html

> At work we have a custom IPAM System and it would be of massive help if i could just put a self written Plugin into some directory and it would be available for use as a IPAM provider.

Sure. But I'll wait until IPAM client support is committed and we got
some feedback on that to ensure the API as is can stay for a while.

While Alexandre copied over the APIAGE and APVERSION mechanism we have
in our storage plugin, and thus we can "break" that controlled I'd still
like to avoid doing so immediately (extensions can be fine by bumping
both, version and age).

cheers,
Thomas