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 CEE9970ED7 for ; Mon, 25 Jul 2022 10:25:04 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id C696C27D1F for ; Mon, 25 Jul 2022 10:25:04 +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 ; Mon, 25 Jul 2022 10:25:04 +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 1EE8A41003 for ; Mon, 25 Jul 2022 10:25:04 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <467c34f5-c8ab-3a17-ec36-cd99a2054bba@proxmox.com> Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2022 10:25:03 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:103.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/103.0 Content-Language: en-GB To: Proxmox VE development discussion , Wolfgang Bumiller , Oguz Bektas References: <20220719112456.298086-1-o.bektas@proxmox.com> <1658231483.00qrznxz22.astroid@nora.none> <20220722125058.vmdslo5zvisv5tcb@wobu-vie.proxmox.com> From: Thomas Lamprecht In-Reply-To: <20220722125058.vmdslo5zvisv5tcb@wobu-vie.proxmox.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL -0.001 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address BAYES_00 -1.9 Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% 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) 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] applied: [PATCH container] fix #4164: use DHCP=yes instead of DHCP=both in systemd-networkd config 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, 25 Jul 2022 08:25:04 -0000 Am 22/07/2022 um 14:50 schrieb Wolfgang Bumiller: > On Tue, Jul 19, 2022 at 01:54:50PM +0200, Oguz Bektas wrote: >> On Tue, Jul 19, 2022 at 01:52:37PM +0200, Fabian Gr=C3=BCnbichler wrot= e: >>> On July 19, 2022 1:24 pm, Oguz Bektas wrote: >>>> "both" option is deprecated, this gets rid of the warning in the jou= rnal >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Oguz Bektas >>> >>> some notion which templates you tested this with, when the deprecatio= n=20 >>> happened in systemd, whether we need a fallback to 'both' for older=20 >>> versions, etc.pp. would be nice to have.. >>> >>> AFAICT the deprecation was in systemd v219, so should probably be oka= y=20 >>> to switch unconditionally.. >> >> yes, all our current templates are using the newer systemd versions, s= o >> no need for a fallback IMO. >> >> i tested it with: >> * arch >> * fedora 35 and 36 >> * ubuntu 20 and 22 >> templates, it got rid of the warning in all of them. >=20 > Introduced in 2015 is old enough. Anybody using a container which > actually uses systemd-networkd *and* is that old will just have to > enable dhcp manually... >=20 > Applied. Why not use the already available get_systemd_version helper though? If it wasn't available I could relate to why one wouldn't like to bother = with adding one for this specific situation, but we already got it, so adding = an automatic fallback would be for free.