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 3B5241FF183 for ; Wed, 30 Jul 2025 15:22:51 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 536A1EE8E; Wed, 30 Jul 2025 15:24:17 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <9f8d73c7-2a54-4a6f-8015-7dde997d36e4@proxmox.com> Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2025 15:24:13 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Beta To: Proxmox Backup Server development discussion , Stefan Hanreich References: <20250729165655.681368-1-s.hanreich@proxmox.com> <20250729165655.681368-9-s.hanreich@proxmox.com> <2367bf22-edcf-4798-8acd-8cd8dd91e4c6@proxmox.com> Content-Language: en-US From: Thomas Lamprecht In-Reply-To: <2367bf22-edcf-4798-8acd-8cd8dd91e4c6@proxmox.com> X-Bm-Milter-Handled: 55990f41-d878-4baa-be0a-ee34c49e34d2 X-Bm-Transport-Timestamp: 1753881842766 X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL -0.031 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 SPF_HELO_NONE 0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record SPF_PASS -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record Subject: Re: [pbs-devel] [PATCH proxmox-network-interface-pinning 1/1] initial commit X-BeenThere: pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Proxmox Backup Server development discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Reply-To: Proxmox Backup Server development discussion Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: pbs-devel-bounces@lists.proxmox.com Sender: "pbs-devel" 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