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 D396964BE9 for ; Fri, 4 Mar 2022 11:52:30 +0100 (CET) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id BDC963238 for ; Fri, 4 Mar 2022 11:52:00 +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 id 9565D322B for ; Fri, 4 Mar 2022 11:51:59 +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 6206F46EAE for ; Fri, 4 Mar 2022 11:51:59 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <7997b9d2-11d8-6359-0674-e4bfcadbf082@proxmox.com> Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2022 11:51:58 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:98.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/98.0 Content-Language: en-GB To: Proxmox VE development discussion , Stoiko Ivanov References: <20220303190759.3527703-1-s.ivanov@proxmox.com> <20220303190759.3527703-2-s.ivanov@proxmox.com> From: Thomas Lamprecht In-Reply-To: <20220303190759.3527703-2-s.ivanov@proxmox.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.059 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 T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE -0.01 - Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [PATCH pve-kernel-meta v2 1/8] rename pve-efiboot-manual-kernels to proxmox-boot-manual-kernels 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: Fri, 04 Mar 2022 10:52:30 -0000 On 03/03/2022 20:07, Stoiko Ivanov wrote: > was forgotten during the general renaming of pve-efiboot -> > proxmox-boot. > > follows commit 8c0a22adfe15dc00cf2194647bb254201d8d187b > > Signed-off-by: Stoiko Ivanov > --- > rebased on current master > > debian/pve-kernel-helper.postinst | 4 ++++ > proxmox-boot/functions | 2 +- > 2 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/debian/pve-kernel-helper.postinst b/debian/pve-kernel-helper.postinst > index 634af3d..2317645 100644 > --- a/debian/pve-kernel-helper.postinst > +++ b/debian/pve-kernel-helper.postinst > @@ -12,6 +12,10 @@ case "$1" in > # FIXME: remove with next version, this is for an internal-only distributed update > update-initramfs -uk 5.15.19-2-pve || true > fi > + if [ -e /etc/kernel/pve-efiboot-manual-kernels ]; then should we add a `&& [ ! -e /etc/kernel/proxmox-boot-manual-kernels ]` ? not that I think it should happen without weird user interaction and downgrading, but having our forum/support cases in mind it sounds much more probable. can be followed up though. > + echo "$0: legacy manual kernel list /etc/kernel/pve-efiboot-manual-kernels found moving to /etc/kernel/proxmox-boot-manual-kernels" 1>&2 > + mv /etc/kernel/pve-efiboot-manual-kernels /etc/kernel/proxmox-boot-manual-kernels > + fi > ;; > esac >