From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: 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 5EA81615F0 for ; Wed, 26 Jul 2023 09:34:51 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 2E77B1DD7 for ; Wed, 26 Jul 2023 09:34:21 +0200 (CEST) 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 for ; Wed, 26 Jul 2023 09:34:20 +0200 (CEST) Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id DADF945300 for ; Wed, 26 Jul 2023 09:34:19 +0200 (CEST) Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2023 09:34:13 +0200 From: Fabian =?iso-8859-1?q?Gr=FCnbichler?= To: Proxmox VE development discussion , Thomas Lamprecht References: <20230718091102.6631-1-f.gruenbichler@proxmox.com> <20230718091102.6631-2-f.gruenbichler@proxmox.com> <973161c1-8ad5-4c56-9f5d-1ea8639d00cc@proxmox.com> In-Reply-To: <973161c1-8ad5-4c56-9f5d-1ea8639d00cc@proxmox.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: astroid/0.16.0 (https://github.com/astroidmail/astroid) Message-Id: <1690356490.g3ndswdo4j.astroid@yuna.none> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.070 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 T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE -0.01 - URIBL_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to URIBL was blocked. See http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/DnsBlocklists#dnsbl-block for more information. [pmg7to8.pm] Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [PATCH pmg-api] handle pve-kernel -> proxmox-kernel rename 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: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2023 07:34:51 -0000 On July 25, 2023 5:06 pm, Thomas Lamprecht wrote: > On 18/07/2023 11:10, Fabian Gr=C3=BCnbichler wrote: >=20 >> diff --git a/src/PMG/CLI/pmg7to8.pm b/src/PMG/CLI/pmg7to8.pm >> index 85e9f16..8cccde1 100644 >> --- a/src/PMG/CLI/pmg7to8.pm >> +++ b/src/PMG/CLI/pmg7to8.pm >> @@ -193,7 +193,7 @@ sub check_pmg_packages { >> } >> =20 >> # FIXME: better differentiate between 6.2 from bullseye or bookworm >> - my ($krunning, $kinstalled) =3D (qr/6\.(?:2\.(?:[2-9]\d+|1[6-8]|1\d\d+= )|5)[^~]*$/, 'pve-kernel-6.2'); >> + my ($krunning, $kinstalled) =3D (qr/6\.(?:2\.(?:[2-9]\d+|1[6-8]|1\d\d+= )|5)[^~]*$/, 'proxmox-kernel-6.2'); >=20 > this looses backwards compat though? >=20 > Makes update harder as we need to coordinate closely moving packages arou= nd.. > Same for PBS and PVE. this ('$kinstalled') is the package that should be installed after the upgrade has happened (for the non-upgraded case, we check for pve-kernel-5.15). technically it means that yes, we should move proxmox-mailgateway (which transitively depends on the renamed kernel pacakges) and pmg-api at the same time through the repos. that's why I noted that > the proxmox-mailgateway meta package could get a versioned dep on > pmg-api with this change, but it's not strictly required. in this patch (and the other similar ones for their respective meta package). the only thing that breaks if we don't do that is this check here complaining if - pmg-api moved faster than the renamed kernel packages (or for some reason, a partial upgrade was done) - *and* the running kernel version is an unexpected one (upgraded, but not yet rebooted, or some other non-standard setup) it still rightfully complains, but with the wrong message..