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 5CF9960C2D for ; Mon, 19 Oct 2020 14:25:35 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 4F7A62C93F for ; Mon, 19 Oct 2020 14:25:35 +0200 (CEST) Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (proxmox-new.maurer-it.com [212.186.127.180]) (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 667FC2C935 for ; Mon, 19 Oct 2020 14:25:34 +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 2BC9C45DF4; Mon, 19 Oct 2020 14:25:34 +0200 (CEST) To: Proxmox VE development discussion , Achim Dreyer References: <20201017134556.2871759-1-ml11045@adreyer.com> <20201017134556.2871759-2-ml11045@adreyer.com> From: Thomas Lamprecht Message-ID: <2caf3f2a-26b9-aef6-2595-6032afec66e3@proxmox.com> Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2020 14:25:32 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:82.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/82.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20201017134556.2871759-2-ml11045@adreyer.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL -0.131 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address 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) RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED -2.3 Sender listed at https://www.dnswl.org/, medium trust 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] SPAM: [PATCH v2 container 1/1] Fix numbering scheme detection for CentOS Stream releases. 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: Mon, 19 Oct 2020 12:25:35 -0000 On 17.10.20 15:45, Achim Dreyer wrote: > Signed-off-by: Achim Dreyer > --- > src/PVE/LXC/Setup/CentOS.pm | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) >=20 > diff --git a/src/PVE/LXC/Setup/CentOS.pm b/src/PVE/LXC/Setup/CentOS.pm > index 0825273..77eb6f7 100644 > --- a/src/PVE/LXC/Setup/CentOS.pm > +++ b/src/PVE/LXC/Setup/CentOS.pm > @@ -19,7 +19,7 @@ sub new { > =20 > my $version; > =20 > - if ($release =3D~ m/release\s+(\d+\.\d+)(\.\d+)?/) { > + if (($release =3D~ m/release\s+(\d+\.\d+)(\.\d+)?/) || ($release =3D= ~ m/release\s+(\d+)/)) { > if ($1 >=3D 5 && $1 <=3D 9) { > $version =3D $1; > } >=20 Patch and organizational stuff looks OK, but can you please tell me what = the issue was with the original code? A CentOS 8 Stream template from the LXC repo[0] shows the following redha= t-release (linked to centos-release) file content: > CentOS Linux release 8.2.2004 (Core) and would match the original regex. What do the release files making problems here look like? Would be good to have some rationale with what/why we can expect here, as= if I had to guess it's looking like `.` but that wou= ld not had triggered you sending this patch, I guess. cheers, Thomas [0]: https://uk.images.linuxcontainers.org/images/centos/8-Stream/amd64/d= efault/20201019_07:44/?C=3DS;O=3DA