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 16A0E9425A for ; Tue, 10 Jan 2023 13:56:57 +0100 (CET) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id E3102A95E for ; Tue, 10 Jan 2023 13:56:56 +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 ; Tue, 10 Jan 2023 13:56:55 +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 912CF44E38 for ; Tue, 10 Jan 2023 13:56:55 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <826ae532-df17-0289-2871-4fb1aecf13a5@proxmox.com> Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2023 13:56:54 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.6.0 Content-Language: en-US To: Proxmox VE development discussion References: <20230103133121.114234-1-n.ullreich@proxmox.com> <20230103133121.114234-3-n.ullreich@proxmox.com> <0bfa9e88-4f57-e4d4-2087-caf572a85aaa@proxmox.com> From: Noel Ullreich In-Reply-To: <0bfa9e88-4f57-e4d4-2087-caf572a85aaa@proxmox.com> X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL -0.123 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address BAYES_00 -1.9 Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% HTML_MESSAGE 0.001 HTML included in message KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment KAM_NUMSUBJECT 0.5 Subject ends in numbers excluding current years 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 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.29 Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [PATCH pve-docs 2/3] Fixed the table in 3.11.8 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: Tue, 10 Jan 2023 12:56:57 -0000 On 03-01-2023 16:35, Thomas Lamprecht wrote: > Am 03/01/2023 um 14:31 schrieb Noel Ullreich: >> Fixed the table by manually replacing the characters latex could not >> render with simpler characters. This will have to be done manually >> again for any future tables of the same style for now. > you don't remove the old one though...? I left the old one for future reference if someone copy/pastes another table into the docs and then wonders why the pdf doesn't build correctly. If they then grep through the .adoc files (which is what I would do) they should more easily find my workaround. I can also take this out, though. > >> Signed-off-by: Noel Ullreich >> --- >> certificate-management.adoc | 24 ++++++++++++++++++++++-- >> 1 file changed, 22 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/certificate-management.adoc b/certificate-management.adoc >> index edf0468..f481916 100644 >> --- a/certificate-management.adoc >> +++ b/certificate-management.adoc >> @@ -292,10 +292,29 @@ root@proxmox:~# echo "OVH_CK=ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ" >> /path/to/api-t >> ---- >> >> Now you can setup the the ACME plugin: >> - >> ---- >> root@proxmox:~# pvenode acme plugin add dns example_plugin --api ovh --data /path/to/api_token >> root@proxmox:~# pvenode acme plugin config example_plugin >> + --------------------------------------------------- >> +| key | value | >> + --------------------------------------------------- >> +| api | ovh | >> + --------------------------------------------------- >> +| data | OVH_AK=XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX | >> +| | OVH_AS=YYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY | >> +| | OVH_CK=ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ | >> + --------------------------------------------------- >> +| digest | 867fcf556363ca1bea866863093fcab83edf47a1 | >> + --------------------------------------------------- >> +| plugin | example_plugin | >> + --------------------------------------------------- >> +| type | dns | >> + --------------------------------------------------- >> +---- >> + >> +//// >> +actually looks like this but this won't render, not even in xetex >> +with --fop, a2x can kinda handle it but that breaks other stuff >> ┌────────┬──────────────────────────────────────────┐ >> │ key │ value │ >> ╞════════╪══════════════════════════════════════════╡ >> @@ -311,7 +330,8 @@ root@proxmox:~# pvenode acme plugin config example_plugin >> ├────────┼──────────────────────────────────────────┤ >> │ type │ dns │ >> └────────┴──────────────────────────────────────────┘ >> ----- >> +//// >> + >> >> At last you can configure the domain you want to get certificates for and >> place the certificate order for it: >From n.ullreich@proxmox.com Tue Jan 10 14:05:57 2023 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com Delivered-To: pve-devel@lists.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 A40E294261 for ; Tue, 10 Jan 2023 14:05:57 +0100 (CET) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 7BC84AB2A for ; Tue, 10 Jan 2023 14:05:27 +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 ; Tue, 10 Jan 2023 14:05:26 +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 3B30F44A34 for ; Tue, 10 Jan 2023 14:05:26 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2023 14:05:24 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.6.0 Content-Language: en-US To: Proxmox VE development discussion References: <20230103133121.114234-1-n.ullreich@proxmox.com> <20230103133121.114234-2-n.ullreich@proxmox.com> <61b40856-60ea-f9b2-ba99-700e7ce1b899@proxmox.com> From: Noel Ullreich In-Reply-To: <61b40856-60ea-f9b2-ba99-700e7ce1b899@proxmox.com> X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.133 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address BAYES_00 -1.9 Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% HTML_MESSAGE 0.001 HTML included in message 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 URIBL_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to URIBL was blocked. See http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/DnsBlocklists#dnsbl-block for more information. [stackexchange.com] Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.29 Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [PATCH pve-docs 1/3] Fixed inline code breaking in pdf docs 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: Tue, 10 Jan 2023 13:05:57 -0000 On 03-01-2023 16:36, Thomas Lamprecht wrote: > Am 03/01/2023 um 14:31 schrieb Noel Ullreich: >> Had to overwrite the `texttt` command to allow breaks in long strings >> with no space. Now the line can be broken on specific chars as well. >> > any context/reference where you pulled this from or how > you came up with it? I adapted this stackexchange answer: https://tex.stackexchange.com/questions/219445/line-break-in-texttt?rq=1 This works well because it allows breaks at predefined characters in inline code. If this is not done, Latex will not know where to break long commands. > >> Signed-off-by: Noel Ullreich >> --- >> asciidoc/dblatex-custom.sty | 13 +++++++++++++ >> 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+) >> >> diff --git a/asciidoc/dblatex-custom.sty b/asciidoc/dblatex-custom.sty >> index 6b2578c..02fbe16 100644 >> --- a/asciidoc/dblatex-custom.sty >> +++ b/asciidoc/dblatex-custom.sty >> @@ -66,3 +66,16 @@ >> \drawtitlepage >> \pagebreak[4] >> } >> + >> +% to correctly break inline code the texttt command needs to be renewed >> +\DeclareRobustCommand{\texttt}[1]{ >> + \begingroup% >> + \ttfamily% >> + % characters on which to break. `_` does not work >> + \begingroup\lccode`~=`/\lowercase{\endgroup\def~}{/\discretionary{}{}{}}% >> + \begingroup\lccode`~=`.\lowercase{\endgroup\def~}{.\discretionary{}{}{}}% >> + \begingroup\lccode`~=`-\lowercase{\endgroup\def~}{-\discretionary{}{}{}}% >> + \catcode`/=\active\catcode`.=\active\catcode`-=\active% >> + \scantokens{#1\noexpand}% >> + \endgroup% >> +} >From f.ebner@proxmox.com Tue Jan 10 14:07:07 2023 Return-Path: X-Original-To: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com Delivered-To: pve-devel@lists.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 1622D942B4 for ; Tue, 10 Jan 2023 14:07:07 +0100 (CET) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id E9A82ABC3 for ; Tue, 10 Jan 2023 14:06:36 +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 ; Tue, 10 Jan 2023 14:06:32 +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 4E9C144A34 for ; Tue, 10 Jan 2023 14:06:32 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <159837ba-f916-7b03-2cab-8e486b38b6bb@proxmox.com> Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2023 14:06:31 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.5.0 Content-Language: en-US To: Christoph Heiss Cc: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com References: <20230102123633.2493599-1-c.heiss@proxmox.com> <20230102123633.2493599-3-c.heiss@proxmox.com> <20230110111141.2hxrozsr7fatvswj@maui.proxmox.com> <20230110124441.g6mapiv7yauo2xjc@maui.proxmox.com> From: Fiona Ebner In-Reply-To: <20230110124441.g6mapiv7yauo2xjc@maui.proxmox.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL -0.127 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) POISEN_SPAM_PILL 0.1 Meta: its spam POISEN_SPAM_PILL_1 0.1 random spam to be learned in bayes POISEN_SPAM_PILL_3 0.1 random spam to be learned in bayes 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] [PATCH storage] fix #4289: pbs: wait for backup verification to finish before updating volume attribute 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: Tue, 10 Jan 2023 13:07:07 -0000 Am 10.01.23 um 13:44 schrieb Christoph Heiss: > On Tue, Jan 10, 2023 at 01:34:14PM +0100, Fiona Ebner wrote: >> Am 10.01.23 um 12:11 schrieb Christoph Heiss: >>> On Wed, Jan 04, 2023 at 11:50:38AM +0100, Fiona Ebner wrote: >> Regarding the API, maybe it can be its own endpoint in the backup API >> (alongside endpoints like 'blob' and 'finish')? As long as we protect >> the backup before marking it as finished it should be good. Just an >> idea, not sure if it would be better. > After looking into it, my first though was maybe to add a (boolean) > parameter to the `finish` endpoint. > But creating a separate endpoint and calling that before `finish` sounds > very reasonable as well. > Any thoughts on what would be more idiomatic/reasonable? > Having a parameter for 'finish' seems a bit cleaner to me. I'm sure the PBS people will complain if they are not happy with it ;) >>> And I guess I need to figure out a way how to detect whether the new >>> parameter is supported or not? >> >> If there is no straightforward way to make that information available in >> VZDump.pm, we could also just base the decision off of the PBS version. > Thanks for the idea, that may be doable! > >> >> One way to decide if the current behavior should be used as a fallback >> would be to check the protected status after finishing the backup. That >> is slightly racy though, because something else could've already changed >> the protection between finishing and the check. > I'd base it off the decision from above - if the `proxmox-backup-client` > version supports setting it directly, use that, otherwise simply fall > back. It's not just the client, but the server that needs to support it too. To make sure that the client/QEMU/etc. support it, we can just have pve-manager depend on a recent enough version. For the server, there is a /version API endpoint we can query.