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 1B785D0C8 for ; Wed, 20 Sep 2023 14:09:50 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id EFFE315668 for ; Wed, 20 Sep 2023 14:09:49 +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) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS for ; Wed, 20 Sep 2023 14:09:49 +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 14591482B3 for ; Wed, 20 Sep 2023 14:09:49 +0200 (CEST) Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2023 14:09:42 +0200 From: Fabian =?iso-8859-1?q?Gr=FCnbichler?= To: Dominik Csapak , Philipp Hufnagl , Proxmox VE development discussion References: <20230911135658.1828454-1-p.hufnagl@proxmox.com> <2366cd7c-68b9-452a-b72e-5458f47f4276@proxmox.com> <1695210325.863ju9zr7b.astroid@yuna.none> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: astroid/0.16.0 (https://github.com/astroidmail/astroid) Message-Id: <1695211533.2t6opgxjzx.astroid@yuna.none> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.063 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 Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [PATCH manager v7 0/2] fix #4849: allow download of compressed ISOs 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, 20 Sep 2023 12:09:50 -0000 On September 20, 2023 1:50 pm, Dominik Csapak wrote: > On 9/20/23 13:46, Fabian Gr=C3=BCnbichler wrote: >> On September 20, 2023 1:07 pm, Dominik Csapak wrote: >>> LGTM and works as advertised. >>=20 >> it breaks downloading container templates that are compressed with one >> of the "known" compression algorithms (such as gz). >>=20 >> probably the detect-compression parameter and handling needs to go back >> in (that was the reason it was there in the first place!), or some other >> solution needs to be found.. >>=20 >>=20 >=20 > ah yes ofc, sorry for the oversight >=20 > couldn't we simply check in the backend for the download for the content = type? > as we only really need to unpack isos? the "query url" part doesn't know about (storage) content types. and it returns the file name, so we can't let it detect compression but throw that part away, else we get the uncompressed filename instead of the compressed one (exactly what happens with v7 now). that's why we originally made the client/GUI make the choice: iso download dialogue: - query url with compression support - allow overriding (de)compression - pass (de)compression to download if set other download dialogues (currently only templates): - query url without compression support - don't offer (de)compression choice - (de)compression is never set, thus never passed to download in addition, the download backend (which knows about content types) also only allows decompression for isos (at least for the time being, if we ever revisit and allow plain container template archives then all of this is moot anyway ;))