From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <a.lauterer@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 5738C94285
for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Fri, 9 Feb 2024 13:36:14 +0100 (CET)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 34F3A391F6
for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Fri, 9 Feb 2024 13:36:14 +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
for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Fri, 9 Feb 2024 13:36:13 +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 F3D6A46758
for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Fri, 9 Feb 2024 13:36:12 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <2c2261b3-380e-4c0f-8077-bff387caaf9d@proxmox.com>
Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2024 13:36:12 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
To: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>,
Christoph Heiss <c.heiss@proxmox.com>
References: <20240209105629.285910-1-c.heiss@proxmox.com>
<20240209105629.285910-2-c.heiss@proxmox.com>
From: Aaron Lauterer <a.lauterer@proxmox.com>
In-Reply-To: <20240209105629.285910-2-c.heiss@proxmox.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0
AWL -0.065 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. [proxmox.com]
Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [PATCH installer 1/4] low-level: initialize UI
backend for 'dump-env' subcommand too
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>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 09 Feb 2024 12:36:14 -0000
Is this something I should consider for the new dump-udev subcommand as well?
https://lists.proxmox.com/pipermail/pve-devel/2024-January/061433.html
On 2/9/24 11:55, Christoph Heiss wrote:
> Some detection routines might try to log things and call some
> Proxmox::Ui functions all the way down, so just initialize it with the
> stdio backend to avoid errors.
>
> Signed-off-by: Christoph Heiss <c.heiss@proxmox.com>
> ---
> proxmox-low-level-installer | 1 +
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
>
> diff --git a/proxmox-low-level-installer b/proxmox-low-level-installer
> index d127a40..2848295 100755
> --- a/proxmox-low-level-installer
> +++ b/proxmox-low-level-installer
> @@ -91,6 +91,7 @@ Proxmox::Log::init("/tmp/install-low-level-${cmd}.log");
>
> my $env = Proxmox::Install::ISOEnv::get();
> if ($cmd eq 'dump-env') {
> + Proxmox::UI::init_stdio({}, $env);
>
> my $out_dir = $env->{locations}->{run};
> make_path($out_dir);