From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <pve-devel-bounces@lists.proxmox.com>
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [IPv6:2a01:7e0:0:424::9])
by lore.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9FD411FF16F
for <inbox@lore.proxmox.com>; Fri, 15 Nov 2024 10:35:23 +0100 (CET)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id B17F3FC6D;
Fri, 15 Nov 2024 10:35:24 +0100 (CET)
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2024 10:34:51 +0100
From: Christoph Heiss <c.heiss@proxmox.com>
To: Thomas Lamprecht <t.lamprecht@proxmox.com>
Message-ID: <26oyyex2r7hasoamtsvhbvoumd675zpfoti7jwd4zdfo5d2rx5@lj4tmguuwalb>
References: <20241113135908.1622968-1-c.heiss@proxmox.com>
<20241113135908.1622968-3-c.heiss@proxmox.com>
<aa60f5c8-09be-4bed-8e55-4ba6c5050cd9@proxmox.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <aa60f5c8-09be-4bed-8e55-4ba6c5050cd9@proxmox.com>
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0
AWL 0.030 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
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. [multi-user.target, network-pre.target, network.target,
network-online.target]
Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [RFC PATCH installer 2/5] fix #5579: first-boot:
add initial service packaging
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>
Reply-To: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
Cc: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Errors-To: pve-devel-bounces@lists.proxmox.com
Sender: "pve-devel" <pve-devel-bounces@lists.proxmox.com>
On Thu, Nov 14, 2024 at 09:23:48PM +0100, Thomas Lamprecht wrote:
> Am 13.11.24 um 14:59 schrieb Christoph Heiss:
> > diff --git a/proxmox-first-boot/etc/proxmox-first-boot.service b/proxmox-first-boot/etc/proxmox-first-boot.service
> > new file mode 100644
> > index 0000000..046bb24
> > --- /dev/null
> > +++ b/proxmox-first-boot/etc/proxmox-first-boot.service
> > @@ -0,0 +1,16 @@
> > +[Unit]
> > +Description=Proxmox First Boot Setup
> > +After=systemd-remount-fs.service
> > +Before=network-pre.target
> > +Wants=network-pre.target
>
> I now I mentioned above ordering in our off-list chat, and it seems correct
> for the usecase where one needs to configure networking itself here.
> But, when summarizing our chat in the bug report, I re-read the use-cases
> and saw that there might be also some users that require the first-boot
> script to have the network available, e.g. to pull further automation stuff in.
>
> So it really would be great to allow overriding that ordering.
I see, so probably introduce a `first-boot.ordering` (or similar)
key, defaulting to "network-pre"?
Should it be an enum then? I.e. only allowing certain values such as
- network-pre.target
- network.target
- network-online.target
- multi-user.target
Further we could include {local,remote}-fs.target and maybe ceph.target?
(All available can be listed with `systemctl list-units --type target`,
for reference.)
Or just be a freeform text field and let the user decide entirely by
themselves?
If we allow configuring that though, we might need to change WantedBy=
depending on that too.
Not sure if we could just use multi-user.target as a default target, but
systemd *should* pull it in and run it in the right ordering too with
e.g. {Before,Wants}=network-pre.target ?
>
> Simplest way might be to leave it out here, or well go for the default we want
> (in doubt -> dice roll), and write out a systemd unit snippet during installation
> depending on a additional setting from the answer file.
>
_______________________________________________
pve-devel mailing list
pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com
https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel