From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [IPv6:2a01:7e0:0:424::9]) by lore.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 94C6C1FF13F for ; Thu, 29 Jan 2026 13:10:08 +0100 (CET) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id A4A42515; Thu, 29 Jan 2026 13:10:34 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2026 13:10:24 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [PATCH manager 06/10] ui: qemu: make os type selector architecture aware To: Dominik Csapak , Proxmox VE development discussion References: <20260128123035.2576774-1-d.csapak@proxmox.com> <20260128123035.2576774-7-d.csapak@proxmox.com> <996532ce-e7b6-4221-addc-ccddeb71374f@proxmox.com> <7dffe159-3582-4406-850b-3318757658d0@proxmox.com> Content-Language: en-US From: Fiona Ebner In-Reply-To: <7dffe159-3582-4406-850b-3318757658d0@proxmox.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Bm-Milter-Handled: 55990f41-d878-4baa-be0a-ee34c49e34d2 X-Bm-Transport-Timestamp: 1769688557130 X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL -0.015 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 Message-ID-Hash: BXUEOHJSJF56ZB5ONZSMGKQP6JW42OJI X-Message-ID-Hash: BXUEOHJSJF56ZB5ONZSMGKQP6JW42OJI X-MailFrom: f.ebner@proxmox.com X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; loop; banned-address; emergency; member-moderation; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.10 Precedence: list List-Id: Proxmox VE development discussion List-Help: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Am 29.01.26 um 11:17 AM schrieb Dominik Csapak: > btw. i found some bugs with the current ostype implementation > (there is some bad behavior with different host arch + wizard vs non- > wizard) > > i'm currently contemplating rewriting this + the iso edit component into > pure 'non-wizard' components and make a separate 'iso+ostype' panel > that's specific for the wizard. > > that would clean up a fair bit of code and make the different flows > a bit cleaner > > also, i'd like to change the way we generate the architecture in the > wizard. > > imho it's better to let the wizard calculate the 'correct' arch > (including considering the hostarch) than each component itself Sounds good!