From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <d.csapak@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))
 (No client certificate requested)
 by lists.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 51D1164D86
 for <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Fri,  4 Mar 2022 12:50:39 +0100 (CET)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 4745B428F
 for <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Fri,  4 Mar 2022 12:50:09 +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))
 (No client certificate requested)
 by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS id D2F324286
 for <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Fri,  4 Mar 2022 12:50:08 +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 97DF546EB1;
 Fri,  4 Mar 2022 12:50:08 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <93ec49a4-4790-0aef-a763-723f5177ecd5@proxmox.com>
Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2022 12:50:07 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:98.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/98.0
Content-Language: en-US
To: Wolfgang Bumiller <w.bumiller@proxmox.com>,
 Markus Frank <m.frank@proxmox.com>
Cc: pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com
References: <20220301112609.84755-1-m.frank@proxmox.com>
 <20220304110250.wos6p2z2jby5qexf@wobu-vie.proxmox.com>
From: Dominik Csapak <d.csapak@proxmox.com>
In-Reply-To: <20220304110250.wos6p2z2jby5qexf@wobu-vie.proxmox.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results:  0
 AWL 0.155 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           -0.001 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
 T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE    -0.01 -
Subject: Re: [pbs-devel] [PATCH proxmox-backup v3] fix #3854 paperkey import
 to proxmox-tape
X-BeenThere: pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Proxmox Backup Server development discussion
 <pbs-devel.lists.proxmox.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/options/pbs-devel>, 
 <mailto:pbs-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.proxmox.com/pipermail/pbs-devel/>
List-Post: <mailto:pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
List-Help: <mailto:pbs-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pbs-devel>, 
 <mailto:pbs-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 04 Mar 2022 11:50:39 -0000

On 3/4/22 12:02, Wolfgang Bumiller wrote:
> nit: @Dominik (since you suggested it):
> do we really want `-file` as a suffix here?
> 
> We have these currently:
> in recover:
>      --file
>      --keyfile (without the dash), and
> in 'inspect':
>      --chunk => chunk file
>      --decode => apparently where to decode*to*  🤔
>      --keyfile (also no dash)
> manager's 'acme':
>      --data => path to plugin-data file
> 
> should we just use `--paperkey` here?

meh...

'--paperkey': would fit into the existing scheme, but implies
   giving the content, not a file...

'--paperkeyfile': it's ugly

so i suggested '--paperkey-file'...

but we can ofc use '--paperkey' here, maybe try
to use the content directly if it isn't an existing path?

then the implication would at least work...

idk, i'm not the best person to deal with naming things...