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 4BF621FF16B for ; Tue, 29 Jul 2025 16:41:24 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id B31F215550; Tue, 29 Jul 2025 16:42:46 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <97e24dd6-8e69-43cb-9bc5-00d4c7cdff5a@proxmox.com> Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2025 16:42:12 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Beta To: Proxmox VE development discussion , Fiona Ebner , Wolfgang Bumiller References: <20250729111557.136012-1-w.bumiller@proxmox.com> <20250729111557.136012-7-w.bumiller@proxmox.com> <1e677c07-929c-466c-bf7d-4cf5adfd0997@proxmox.com> Content-Language: en-US From: Thomas Lamprecht In-Reply-To: <1e677c07-929c-466c-bf7d-4cf5adfd0997@proxmox.com> X-Bm-Milter-Handled: 55990f41-d878-4baa-be0a-ee34c49e34d2 X-Bm-Transport-Timestamp: 1753800123609 X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL -0.032 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 URIBL_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to URIBL was blocked. See http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/DnsBlocklists#dnsbl-block for more information. [common.pm] Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [PATCH storage 06/26] common: use v5.36 X-BeenThere: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Proxmox VE development discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Reply-To: Proxmox VE development discussion Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: pve-devel-bounces@lists.proxmox.com Sender: "pve-devel" Am 29.07.25 um 15:59 schrieb Fiona Ebner: >> diff --git a/src/PVE/Storage/Common.pm b/src/PVE/Storage/Common.pm >> index 746a262..222dc76 100644 >> --- a/src/PVE/Storage/Common.pm >> +++ b/src/PVE/Storage/Common.pm >> @@ -1,7 +1,6 @@ >> package PVE::Storage::Common; >> >> -use strict; >> -use warnings; >> +use v5.36; >> >> use PVE::JSONSchema; >> use PVE::Syscall; > Do you need a specific feature from v5.36? Would be great to have some > context. And should we go for v5.40, since that's what we have in > Trixie? Or are there any reservations about specific language changes? > Yes, this should have been stated in the commit message, but effectively: 5.36 allows us to use signatures (and makes enabling warnings/strict obsolete, so one line less in total) while ensuring we can backport anything to PVE 8 without having to adapt patches, as it cannot use v5.40. That's a big reason behind the best practice of only raising lower limits as high as really necessary for something to be usable. Having real signatures available, inclusive support for default values, is definitively worth it, and as PVE 7 is EOL since over a year we can rather safely use v5.36. _______________________________________________ pve-devel mailing list pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel