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) server-digest SHA256)
(No client certificate requested)
by lists.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 696039722C
for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Sat, 28 Jan 2023 14:56:20 +0100 (CET)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 7A8B21A809
for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Sat, 28 Jan 2023 14:56:19 +0100 (CET)
Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (proxmox-new.maurer-it.com
[94.136.29.106])
(using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)
key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256)
(No client certificate requested)
by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS
for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Sat, 28 Jan 2023 14:56:18 +0100 (CET)
Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
by proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 0E18C469F7
for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Sat, 28 Jan 2023 14:56:18 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <b45a2e4c-de0c-4b2e-f6be-ba206e1b9f84@proxmox.com>
Date: Sat, 28 Jan 2023 14:56:16 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:110.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/110.0
Content-Language: de-AT, en-GB
To: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>,
=?UTF-8?Q?Fabian_Gr=C3=BCnbichler?= <f.gruenbichler@proxmox.com>
References: <20230118135448.152425-1-l.nunner@proxmox.com>
<1674815875.i6y9hjxurd.astroid@yuna.none>
From: Thomas Lamprecht <t.lamprecht@proxmox.com>
In-Reply-To: <1674815875.i6y9hjxurd.astroid@yuna.none>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0
AWL 0.523 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address
BAYES_00 -1.9 Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1%
KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment
NICE_REPLY_A -1.148 Looks like a legit reply (A)
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. [apt.pm, proxmox.com]
Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [PATCH manager] fix 4481: fetch changelogs for any
Proxmox repository
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: Sat, 28 Jan 2023 13:56:20 -0000
Am 27/01/2023 um 11:41 schrieb Fabian Gr=C3=BCnbichler:
> On January 18, 2023 2:54 pm, Leo Nunner wrote:
>> This patch fixes the issue that when the user supplied any non-standar=
d
>> repositories, the changelogs often wouldn't load. For example, providi=
ng
>> both pve-no-subscription and pbs-no-subscription broke the changelog
>> API, since the URL built for pbs-no-subscription was invalid.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Leo Nunner <l.nunner@proxmox.com>
>> ---
>> PVE/API2/APT.pm | 13 +++++++++----
>> 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/PVE/API2/APT.pm b/PVE/API2/APT.pm
>> index 09c76545..921b55a1 100644
>> --- a/PVE/API2/APT.pm
>> +++ b/PVE/API2/APT.pm
>> @@ -101,10 +101,15 @@ my $get_changelog_url =3Dsub {
>> $base =3D~ s!pool/updates/!pool/!; # for security channel
>> $changelog_url =3D "http://packages.debian.org/changelogs/$base/=
${srcpkg}_${pkgver}/changelog";
>> } elsif ($origin eq 'Proxmox') {
>> - if ($component eq 'pve-enterprise') {
>> - $changelog_url =3D "https://enterprise.proxmox.com/debian/$base/${p=
kgname}_${pkgver}.changelog";
>> - } else {
>> - $changelog_url =3D "http://download.proxmox.com/debian/$base/${pkgn=
ame}_${pkgver}.changelog";
>> + my $data =3D Proxmox::RS::APT::Repositories::repositories("pve")=
;
>> +
>> + for my $file ($data->{files}->@*) {
>> + for my $repo ($file->{repositories}->@*) {
>> + if (join(" ", $repo->{Components}->@*) eq $component) {
>=20
> a few improvements possible here:
> - it should be enough that one of the components matches (e.g., I could=
have
> pvetest and pve-no-subscription configured in a single entry)
> - this should only take enabled repositories into account
> - we should probably also compare the 'Site' member of $pkgfile toe the=
> repository URL
>=20
> since $origin and $component also come from $pkgfile at the call sites,=
we could
> maybe just pass in $pkgfile?
>=20
> other than that, this looks okay to me since our components all contain=
the
> product, so this allows differentiation :)
just to be sure: is ceph with it's `test` and `main` covered too?