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) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by lists.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EF03C7A635 for ; Tue, 5 Jul 2022 08:43:55 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id D86222C0AB for ; Tue, 5 Jul 2022 08:43:25 +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) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS for ; Tue, 5 Jul 2022 08:43:24 +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 7A2DB40F01 for ; Tue, 5 Jul 2022 08:43:24 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: Date: Tue, 5 Jul 2022 08:43:23 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:103.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/103.0 Content-Language: en-GB To: Proxmox VE development discussion , Stefan Sterz References: <20220704154517.561889-1-s.sterz@proxmox.com> From: Thomas Lamprecht In-Reply-To: <20220704154517.561889-1-s.sterz@proxmox.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.004 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 T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE -0.01 - URIBL_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to URIBL was blocked. See http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/DnsBlocklists#dnsbl-block for more information. [pveceph.pm] Subject: [pve-devel] applied: Re: [PATCH manager v2] fix: make 'ceph-volume' conditional on quincy install 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, 05 Jul 2022 06:43:56 -0000 On 04/07/2022 17:45, Stefan Sterz wrote: > when installing non-quincy versions, 'ceph-volume' is not contained in > the respective repositories and, thus, the install process would fail. > > Signed-off-by: Stefan Sterz > --- > tested this by installing octopus, pacific and quincy. same issues as > before. > > PVE/CLI/pveceph.pm | 6 +++++- > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > applied, thanks! reworded the commit subject a bit and in a followup commit also the comment to make it clearer when we can drop support for that. FWIW, the thought on forward compatibility is a good one, but often we either translate the code names to versions so that we can do a easier to understand, and often also a bit more robust `$ver_map->{$cephver} >= $ver_map->{quincy}` But I don't expect much change here until we can just remove it with 8.0, where we probably don't support new pacific installations anyway, so your variant is just fine here.