From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <o.bektas@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 B82177C2F4
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Thu,  4 Nov 2021 15:02:04 +0100 (CET)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id A99B421200
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Thu,  4 Nov 2021 15:01:34 +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 4E19B211F3
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Thu,  4 Nov 2021 15:01:30 +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 2655246A01
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Thu,  4 Nov 2021 15:01:30 +0100 (CET)
Date: Thu, 4 Nov 2021 15:01:28 +0100
From: Oguz Bektas <o.bektas@proxmox.com>
To: Thomas Lamprecht <t.lamprecht@proxmox.com>
Cc: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
Message-ID: <YYPnuKuG9032G3nZ@gaia>
Mail-Followup-To: Oguz Bektas <o.bektas@proxmox.com>,
 Thomas Lamprecht <t.lamprecht@proxmox.com>,
 Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
References: <20211104131954.958249-1-o.bektas@proxmox.com>
 <489d6b8c-2628-3eb1-a05b-2fd69c239f67@proxmox.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <489d6b8c-2628-3eb1-a05b-2fd69c239f67@proxmox.com>
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results:  0
 AWL 0.847 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
 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] lxc: add 'unmanaged' checkbox in
 wizard
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, 04 Nov 2021 14:02:04 -0000

On Thu, Nov 04, 2021 at 02:58:25PM +0100, Thomas Lamprecht wrote:
> On 04.11.21 14:19, Oguz Bektas wrote:
> > to allow creating containers with 'unmanaged' ostype easily in GUI.
> > that way we can use other unsupported templates in the GUI as well.
> 
> it's rather an advanced option, but I'm not even sure I want it there,
> unmanaged CTs are def. not the norm. Is there any user demand for this?

no feature request or the like.
but it adds more flexibility to the GUI, e.g. you wouldn't have to
create your container from the command line when using a custom
(unsupported) distribution template.

i thought about hiding it behind "Advanced" as well but it seems that
doesn't work at all on the container wizard?