From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: <piviul@riminilug.it> 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 23989735BB for <pve-user@lists.proxmox.com>; Thu, 15 Apr 2021 16:03:48 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 0AA111AC5E for <pve-user@lists.proxmox.com>; Thu, 15 Apr 2021 16:03:18 +0200 (CEST) Received: from 7.mo177.mail-out.ovh.net (7.mo177.mail-out.ovh.net [46.105.61.149]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS id 839591AC53 for <pve-user@lists.proxmox.com>; Thu, 15 Apr 2021 16:03:17 +0200 (CEST) Received: from player770.ha.ovh.net (unknown [10.110.171.125]) by mo177.mail-out.ovh.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id B927F15B92F for <pve-user@lists.proxmox.com>; Thu, 15 Apr 2021 16:03:10 +0200 (CEST) Received: from riminilug.it (host-79-7-69-158.business.telecomitalia.it [79.7.69.158]) (Authenticated sender: piviul@riminilug.it) by player770.ha.ovh.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C0F3B1D3D4DEC for <pve-user@lists.proxmox.com>; Thu, 15 Apr 2021 14:03:09 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: garm.ovh; auth=pass (GARM-101G0040943ea22-0436-42e5-bdc7-97187a6154fd, B3637F013A390DB87C53718ABBF73930CA8FB7BB) smtp.auth=piviul@riminilug.it X-OVh-ClientIp: 79.7.69.158 To: pve-user@lists.proxmox.com References: <d9bce6e0-d6ba-7492-d335-30a49950e06a@riminilug.it> <b8bd884e-b3f3-f08f-cbaa-5a1b043d13b2@c2n.upsaclay.fr> <5c3d06aa-1bf8-ca1b-e826-3d2615685b9d@riminilug.it> <da7f1512-5fa6-1bb4-a878-7035f8100454@c2n.upsaclay.fr> From: Piviul <piviul@riminilug.it> Message-ID: <a9c32fc8-817e-c26d-376f-b0755f713e02@riminilug.it> Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2021 16:03:08 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.9.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <da7f1512-5fa6-1bb4-a878-7035f8100454@c2n.upsaclay.fr> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Language: en-US X-Ovh-Tracer-Id: 5160280749012407326 X-VR-SPAMSTATE: OK X-VR-SPAMSCORE: 0 X-VR-SPAMCAUSE: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeduledrudelfedgjeehucetufdoteggodetrfdotffvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuqfggjfdpvefjgfevmfevgfenuceurghilhhouhhtmecuhedttdenucenucfjughrpefuvfhfhffkffgfgggjtgfgsehtkeertddtfeelnecuhfhrohhmpefrihhvihhulhcuoehpihhvihhulhesrhhimhhinhhilhhughdrihhtqeenucggtffrrghtthgvrhhnpeeiveehledvkeeiuddvvdehudelffeggeeiudevhfdtffdvfedviedvtdelvdeuudenucfkpheptddrtddrtddrtddpjeelrdejrdeiledrudehkeenucevlhhushhtvghrufhiiigvpedtnecurfgrrhgrmhepmhhouggvpehsmhhtphdqohhuthdphhgvlhhopehplhgrhigvrhejjedtrdhhrgdrohhvhhdrnhgvthdpihhnvghtpedtrddtrddtrddtpdhmrghilhhfrhhomhepphhivhhiuhhlsehrihhmihhnihhluhhgrdhithdprhgtphhtthhopehpvhgvqdhushgvrheslhhishhtshdrphhrohigmhhogidrtghomh X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.217 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_NONE -0.0001 Sender listed at https://www.dnswl.org/, no trust RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3 0.001 Good reputation (+3) RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL 0.001 Mailspike good senders 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-User] Edit: Boot Order mask X-BeenThere: pve-user@lists.proxmox.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Proxmox VE user list <pve-user.lists.proxmox.com> List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/options/pve-user>, <mailto:pve-user-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=unsubscribe> List-Archive: <http://lists.proxmox.com/pipermail/pve-user/> List-Post: <mailto:pve-user@lists.proxmox.com> List-Help: <mailto:pve-user-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-user>, <mailto:pve-user-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=subscribe> X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2021 14:03:48 -0000 Il 14/04/21 18:15, Alain Péan ha scritto: > Hi Piviul, > > I don't think only a difference in kernel could explain this > difference in the web interface, if the other packages are the same. > Did you try to clear the cache in your web browsers ? > > The attached files are indeed there. I looked at the versions, and all > three appears up to date, so for me, the only origin that I can > suppose could be the browser cache. But I'm sure it's not a cache browser because I have clear the cache and I have tested this problem in different browsers in different PCs... in my opinion there is a bug: during the node upgrade to 6.3, proxmox VE doesn't update the code that generate the Boot order option mask. Please can you verify if in your 6.3 proxomox nodes that are updates from previously 6.2 you can see the new drag and drop boot order mask? Thank you very much Piviul