From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: <a.lauterer@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 705A290EDA for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 3 Apr 2024 10:48:27 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 47D22143E3 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 3 Apr 2024 10:47:57 +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>; Wed, 3 Apr 2024 10:47:56 +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 5B70A44CD8 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 3 Apr 2024 10:47:56 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <e07ab596-8f0e-40fe-a243-af59f40d90c2@proxmox.com> Date: Wed, 3 Apr 2024 10:47:55 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Content-Language: en-US To: Christoph Heiss <c.heiss@proxmox.com> Cc: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com> References: <20240328135028.504520-1-a.lauterer@proxmox.com> <mrkk4loy3v6zdiabd2k336dh7uif7i6gjs3tkzocmfa2xbqc5b@66mbdcgkpzdb> <76606273-15d8-46c8-836a-bb23276bf2ca@proxmox.com> <tlqlrpjprxlnci4btmw2pdqtawvxja6nkpve7j6rwf2vt6umce@45ydrikehcqt> From: Aaron Lauterer <a.lauterer@proxmox.com> In-Reply-To: <tlqlrpjprxlnci4btmw2pdqtawvxja6nkpve7j6rwf2vt6umce@45ydrikehcqt> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL -0.058 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 v3 00/30] add automated/unattended installation 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, 03 Apr 2024 08:48:27 -0000 On 2024-04-03 10:19, Christoph Heiss wrote: > On Tue, Apr 02, 2024 at 04:55:11PM +0200, Aaron Lauterer wrote: > [..] >>> >>> - While trying out different configurations, I wondered if for the >>> network something like this would be better for static IPs: >>> >>> [network.manual] >>> cidr = ".." >>> dns = ".." >>> [..] >>> >>> .. keeping the `network.use_dhcp` option as before. Would simplify >>> some checks now and provide good future-proofing for any new options >>> that might get added. >>> >>> Thereby basically modelling >>> `proxmox_auto_installer::answer::NetworkSettings` enum nearly 1:1 to >>> the TOML config. >> >> okay, so that in the DHPC case, it could be >> [network] >> use_dhcp = true >> >> and in the manual case, either >> [network] >> manual.cidr = "…" >> manual.dns = "…" >> >> and so forth, or, to keep it simpler, like your example with >> [network.manual] defining the overall manual key. > > Yeah, exactly. > >> >> This will make it slightly more elaborate to document, as we need to dig >> deeper into how TOML works and that there are multiple ways to define the >> same hierarchy. But it could be worth it to keep the definition cleaner. >> >> Some more feedback in that regard might be useful, especially since changing >> the format later on will be, as you described it, a PITA :) > > Feel free though to not block this series on further feedback for this! > :^) > > Just came to mind while pondering over this and trying different > settings - but doesn't change anything wrt. functionality really. > > IMO we can change/break the answer file format at least with a new > major release later on, so it's not completely set in stone after all. Thinking about it a bit more, I would let it be as it is. The current format is nicer for the actual users, and I did implement it the current way with that in mind. If we realize that it is problematic for some reason, we can change it in a future (major) release.