From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <a.zeidler@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 9CCFF9510D
for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Thu, 11 Apr 2024 19:09:27 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 7F125356B5
for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Thu, 11 Apr 2024 19:08:57 +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 <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Thu, 11 Apr 2024 19:08:56 +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 BEC9F44C47
for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Thu, 11 Apr 2024 19:08:56 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <9bc5525d4de362120c47b5c74d5bac7c6f390abc.camel@proxmox.com>
From: Alexander Zeidler <a.zeidler@proxmox.com>
To: Thomas Lamprecht <t.lamprecht@proxmox.com>, Proxmox VE development
discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2024 19:08:56 +0200
In-Reply-To: <cf11023a-f726-4ed3-95a9-c22b121677f8@proxmox.com>
References: <20240322135933.164404-1-a.zeidler@proxmox.com>
<20240322135933.164404-3-a.zeidler@proxmox.com>
<cf11023a-f726-4ed3-95a9-c22b121677f8@proxmox.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
User-Agent: Evolution 3.46.4-2
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0
AWL 0.101 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
Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [PATCH manager 3/9] report: add list of upgradable
packages
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: Thu, 11 Apr 2024 17:09:27 -0000
On Mon, 2024-03-25 at 09:02 +0100, Thomas Lamprecht wrote:
> On 22/03/2024 14:59, Alexander Zeidler wrote:
> > * to easily see if APT already knows about old packages in use and
> > their exact version
> > * to reconsider asking for applying updates as a first recommendation
> > if the list is empty and no updates have been released very recently
> >=20
> > # apt list --upgradable ...
> > Listing...
> > pve-manager testing 8.1.6 amd64 [upgradable from: 8.1.4]
> >=20
> > Signed-off-by: Alexander Zeidler <a.zeidler@proxmox.com>
> > ---
> > PVE/Report.pm | 1 +
> > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
> >=20
> > diff --git a/PVE/Report.pm b/PVE/Report.pm
> > index 6014f13e..ad5c2aa0 100644
> > --- a/PVE/Report.pm
> > +++ b/PVE/Report.pm
> > @@ -36,6 +36,7 @@ my $init_report_cmds =3D sub {
> > 'cat /etc/hosts',
> > 'pvesubscription get',
> > 'cat /etc/pve/jobs.cfg',
> > + 'apt list --upgradable 2>/dev/null | sed "s/\//\t/g" | column -tL',
>=20
> this can easily add a few 100s KiB of text to the report on major upgrade=
s,
> this is just to verbose for an initial report.
> I'd rather add just the count of available upgrades, i.e. lie `apt update=
`
> does, which allows you to draw similar conclusions without bloating the
> report to unwieldy sizes.
>=20
> Maybe we could even add that info to the pveversion --verbose output,
> as then it'd be already included here and also help on other channels
> like the forum.=20
Good points. I plan to include it into pveversion --verbose at the end like=
this:
```
# pveversion -v
proxmox-ve: 8.1.0 (running kernel: 6.5.13-5-pve)
pve-manager: 8.1.6 (running version: 8.1.6/b7e8e914a1db70cc) [available: 8.=
1.10]
...
vncterm: 1.8.0
zfsutils-linux: 2.2.3-pve1 [available: 2.2.3-pve2]
Number of upgradable packages: 25
```
Separated by a new line since it is not an expected <package>: <version> li=
ne.
Rather placed at the end because, for example, there are sometimes users
who unfortunately only attach a screenshot or copy the last visible lines.
Furthermore, it hints the user to update the system before posting this
information. But if doing so without instruction and if thereby the issue
gets not solved, it might also be bad since it changes the system setup
and previously reported observations/behavior might not be correct any more=
.
As seen in the example output above, it would be helpful if we append
upgradable package lines with their newest available version.
>=20
> > 'cat /etc/apt/sources.list',
> > sub { dir2text('/etc/apt/sources.list.d/', '.+\.list') },
> > sub { dir2text('/etc/apt/sources.list.d/', '.+\.sources') },
>=20