Re: [pbs-devel] [PATCH proxmox-network-interface-pinning 1/1] initial commit

[Thomas Lamprecht <t.lamprecht@proxmox.com>]

Am 30.07.25 um 15:14 schrieb Stefan Hanreich:
> On 7/30/25 3:07 PM, Thomas Lamprecht wrote:
>> Am 29.07.25 um 18:57 schrieb Stefan Hanreich:
>>> +    // This is run on a PVE host, so we use the PVE-specific pinning tool instead with the
>>> +    // parameters supplied.
>>> +    if std::fs::exists("/usr/bin/proxmox-network-interface-pinning")? {
>>
>> Hmm, why does this here live in libexec if it's intended to be the main one?
>>
>> Should we rather move the one from pve-manager into libexec with a product
>> specific name like "pve-network-interface-pinning" and keep this here in
>> bin with the generic name? As otherwise one needs to use the full libexec
>> path when using this on PBS/PMG/PDM? Or what's the idea here?
> 
> Yes, that sounds better, so the pve-manager one into
> 
>   /usr/libexec/proxmox/pve-network-interface-pinning
> 
> and this one into
> 
>   /usr/bin/proxmox-network-interface-pinning
> 
> Or even sbin?

bin an sbin will be probably merged in a future major release anyway as
systemd pushes for doing so, so that doesn't really matters.

> 
> I assume, we would then install the standalone package by default in PVE?

That's the only small "ugliness" there is with this approach, as it would
not be required per se.

The alternative I see is that both life in /usr/bin, either with
"pve" and "proxmox" prefix in the name, respectively, or under the same
name but with conflicts on packaging level and this package here being
added only as Recommended for PBS/PDM/PMG to allow co-installation.

tbh. I'm not opposed of either variant, CC'in Fabian, maybe he can act
as tie breaker here.


_______________________________________________
pbs-devel mailing list
pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com
https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pbs-devel