From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <t.lamprecht@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 CFF5F7553D
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 21 Apr 2021 16:51:12 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id B90451179F
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 21 Apr 2021 16:50:42 +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 id 513731179A
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 21 Apr 2021 16:50:42 +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 234BC4627B
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 21 Apr 2021 16:50:42 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <caf2333b-ef96-cae3-0865-a3ccfd65abd9@proxmox.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2021 16:50:41 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:88.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/88.0
Content-Language: en-US
To: Stefan Reiter <s.reiter@proxmox.com>,
 Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
References: <20210421111539.29261-1-s.reiter@proxmox.com>
 <20210421111539.29261-3-s.reiter@proxmox.com>
 <c7151bdd-e5ad-67e2-6de5-0f85b5b8c3a6@proxmox.com>
 <7579d4ba-749f-8ffb-4cc9-acb100ad3eb7@proxmox.com>
From: Thomas Lamprecht <t.lamprecht@proxmox.com>
In-Reply-To: <7579d4ba-749f-8ffb-4cc9-acb100ad3eb7@proxmox.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results:  0
 AWL 0.000 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address
 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
Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [PATCH common 02/10] PBSClient: allow running other
 binaries
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: Wed, 21 Apr 2021 14:51:12 -0000

On 21.04.21 16:38, Stefan Reiter wrote:
> On 21/04/2021 16:29, Thomas Lamprecht wrote:
>> On 21.04.21 13:15, Stefan Reiter wrote:
>>> ...such as proxmox-file-restore.
>>>
>>
>> For public interface I'd rather see a separate sub, like:
>>
>> run_file_restore_cmd
>>
>> and ideally not even that would be required from an external POV, i.e., why want
>> to avoid to expose a general run_something command here, a clear interface, like
>> you add then for most (all?) things like file_restore_extract, file_restore_list,
>> ..., is in general better (when thinking anti-spaghetti-no-check code).
>>
> 
> This is not part of a public interface though? Both functions that now support the 'binary' argument are declared private...

hmm, ok, then I misread something...