From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [IPv6:2a01:7e0:0:424::9]) by lore.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1F9B91FF183 for ; Wed, 10 Sep 2025 22:46:54 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id BB1E7355B; Wed, 10 Sep 2025 22:46:56 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2025 22:46:53 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Beta To: Peter , pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com References: Content-Language: en-US From: Thomas Lamprecht In-Reply-To: X-Bm-Milter-Handled: 55990f41-d878-4baa-be0a-ee34c49e34d2 X-Bm-Transport-Timestamp: 1757537211652 X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL -0.428 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 KAM_NUMSUBJECT 0.5 Subject ends in numbers excluding current years POISEN_SPAM_PILL 0.1 Meta: its spam POISEN_SPAM_PILL_1 0.1 random spam to be learned in bayes POISEN_SPAM_PILL_3 0.1 random spam to be learned in bayes 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. [centos.pm, base.pm, libsystemd-shared-256.so, 1.so, proxmox.com] Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [RFC] CentOS, Rocky, Alma 10 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 10.09.25 um 22:04 schrieb Peter: > After seeing the thread on Debian 13.1, I wanted to ask what the process is > for adding container support for version 10 of the various RHEL families? Sometimes it's enough to bump the accepted upper version limit, but that won't cut it for the RHEL 10 based derivatives, as there the support for the network configuration in the ifcfg format we previously used for RHEL family got removed. FWIW there is a patch series that includes the required changes [0], I started review and had some local clean ups on top in prepared but not yet fully finished. If you, or someone else, can test the mentioned series it should help to accelerate things a bit. [0]: https://lore.proxmox.com/all/mailman.338.1755988247.385.pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com/ > As to the mechanics, similar to Trixie, there's a version check that blocks > installing a container running el10: > > --- LXC/Setup/CentOS.pm.orig 2025-09-10 15:57:05.961409961 -0400 > > +++ LXC/Setup/CentOS.pm 2025-09-06 16:22:18.589570360 -0400 > > @@ -23,5 +23,5 @@ > > > > if (($release =~ m/release\s+(\d+\.\d+)(\.\d+)?/) || ($release =~ > m/release\s+(\d+)/)) { > > - if ($1 >= 5 && $1 < 10) { > > + if ($1 >= 5 && $1 < 11) { > > $version = $1; > > } > > That lets me install version 10, but then I get a warning each time the > container starts. It turns out the pattern matching for systemd version is > a little too strict in LXC/Setup/Base.pm:get_systemd_version: > > if ($line =~ > /libsystemd-shared-(\d+)(?:[-.][a-zA-Z0-9]+)*\.so:?$/) { > > This worked fine for version 9 and earlier, as their .so line looked like > "libsystemd-shared-256.so". But as of version 10, the .so line is now " > libsystemd-shared-257-9.0.1.el10_0.1.so". The "el10_0" throws off the > regular expression. > > Would it be preferable to loosen the pattern in Base.pm or to copy > get_systemd_version into CentOS.pm and revise the pattern there? The aforementioned series also addresses this, that patch got already applied IIRC: https://lore.proxmox.com/all/mailman.334.1755988211.385.pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com/ _______________________________________________ pve-devel mailing list pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel