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)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D4B1965224 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 22 Jul 2020 12:31:55 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id C89091F8DB for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 22 Jul 2020 12:31:55 +0200 (CEST) Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (proxmox-new.maurer-it.com [212.186.127.180]) (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 id A88D81F8CE for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 22 Jul 2020 12:31:54 +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 65F9C432E7 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 22 Jul 2020 12:31:54 +0200 (CEST) To: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>, =?UTF-8?Q?Dominic_J=c3=a4ger?= <d.jaeger@proxmox.com> References: <20200722102052.25546-1-d.jaeger@proxmox.com> From: Thomas Lamprecht <t.lamprecht@proxmox.com> Message-ID: <94ed3288-870c-af50-f4a6-c0b03b1b30e8@proxmox.com> Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2020 12:31:53 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:79.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/79.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20200722102052.25546-1-d.jaeger@proxmox.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.009 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) RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED -2.3 Sender listed at https://www.dnswl.org/, medium trust 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] [PATCH docs 1/2] pvecm: Add required -r to rm 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: Wed, 22 Jul 2020 10:31:55 -0000 On 22.07.20 12:20, Dominic J=C3=A4ger wrote: > /etc/corosync/* includes the directory uidgid.d. > Consequentlly, a correct rm call requires -r. Does leaving this directory left-over causes any issues? IIRC, I omit the "-r" explicitly as there can be also a directory from a qdevice or other ones, which we do not want to remove - to level corosync/* files where all desired to be removed, thus this rm varian. But, maybe we should rather change it to: # rm -f /etc/corosync/corosync.conf /etc/corosync/authkey to make that more explicit >=20 > Signed-off-by: Dominic J=C3=A4ger <d.jaeger@proxmox.com> > --- > pvecm.adoc | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) >=20 > diff --git a/pvecm.adoc b/pvecm.adoc > index 4bf2f59..9207571 100644 > --- a/pvecm.adoc > +++ b/pvecm.adoc > @@ -414,7 +414,7 @@ Delete the corosync configuration files: > [source,bash] > ---- > rm /etc/pve/corosync.conf > -rm /etc/corosync/* > +rm -r /etc/corosync/* > ---- > =20 > You can now start the filesystem again as normal service: >=20