From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <pve-devel-bounces@lists.proxmox.com>
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [IPv6:2a01:7e0:0:424::9])
by lore.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 01F6F1FF15E
for <inbox@lore.proxmox.com>; Tue, 25 Mar 2025 16:15:28 +0100 (CET)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 966C3D353;
Tue, 25 Mar 2025 16:14:22 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <eddd1ea6-aec2-458a-8633-d499011fd775@proxmox.com>
Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2025 16:13:47 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
To: Alexander Zeidler <a.zeidler@proxmox.com>,
Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
References: <20250210103644.3-1-a.zeidler@proxmox.com>
<b7703f81-8418-4cd7-802e-9852b5b1b8bf@proxmox.com>
<D8PB1CNMOWVY.2OIIX68JVO342@proxmox.com>
From: Aaron Lauterer <a.lauterer@proxmox.com>
In-Reply-To: <D8PB1CNMOWVY.2OIIX68JVO342@proxmox.com>
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0
AWL -0.033 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 docs v1] package repos: revise Ceph section,
introduce 2 attributes
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>
Reply-To: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed"
Errors-To: pve-devel-bounces@lists.proxmox.com
Sender: "pve-devel" <pve-devel-bounces@lists.proxmox.com>
On 2025-03-25 12:19, Alexander Zeidler wrote:
> On Mon Mar 24, 2025 at 5:50 PM CET, Aaron Lauterer wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 2025-02-10 11:36, Alexander Zeidler wrote:
>>> * Remove duplicated text to maintain clarity
>>> * Mention available installation methods (web-based wizard, CLI tool)
>>> * Create a table to see the support state of Ceph releases
>>
>> I am not sure if having this in the rather static documentation is a
>> good idea. Having it in the Proxmox VE wiki where changes can be made
>> quickly is probably better. Similar how we handle it for PVE releases
>> with https://pve.proxmox.com/wiki/FAQ
>
> https://pve.proxmox.com/wiki/FAQ is not meant for manual modification.
> It is auto-generated from pve-faq.adoc and also included in the doc:
> https://pve.proxmox.com/pve-docs/pve-admin-guide.html#faq-support-table
>
> I am not sure if quick edits are needed here. While the estimated EOL
> should not change, the other table content and admin guide version
> may/should be updated anyway with new PVE/Ceph releases.
Good point, I stand corrected ;)
>
>>
>>> * List and link to the EOL dates of Ceph releases
>>> * Reword the descriptions of available PVE repositories
>>>
>>> * Add two new attributes to avoid manual editing multiple lines
>>> ** debian-codename=bookworm
>>> It seems that the codename is not available in the build process,
>>> so updating the new attribute on Debian major release upgrades may
>>> be fine.
>>> ** pve-version=8
>>> While `revnumber` ("8.3.1") is made available by the current build
>>> process, it is not as suitable as only mentioning the major version
>>> number.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Alexander Zeidler <a.zeidler@proxmox.com>
>>> ---
>>> asciidoc/asciidoc-pve.conf | 2 +
>>> pve-package-repos.adoc | 165 ++++++++++++++-----------------------
>>> 2 files changed, 63 insertions(+), 104 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/asciidoc/asciidoc-pve.conf b/asciidoc/asciidoc-pve.conf
>>> index 0c28298..8ad635f 100644
>>> --- a/asciidoc/asciidoc-pve.conf
>>> +++ b/asciidoc/asciidoc-pve.conf
>>> @@ -3,6 +3,8 @@
>>> proxmoxGmbh=Proxmox Server Solutions GmbH
>>> copyright=Proxmox Server Solutions GmbH
>>> pve=Proxmox VE
>>> +pve-version=8
>>> +debian-codename=bookworm
>>> pricing-url=https://proxmox.com/en/proxmox-virtual-environment/pricing
>>> website=https://www.proxmox.com/
>>> forum-url=https://forum.proxmox.com/
>>> diff --git a/pve-package-repos.adoc b/pve-package-repos.adoc
>>> index c831cd9..e0a9fb5 100644
>>> --- a/pve-package-repos.adoc
>>> +++ b/pve-package-repos.adoc
>>> @@ -24,6 +24,7 @@ security updates, bug fixes and new features.
>>> APT Repositories are defined in the file `/etc/apt/sources.list` and in `.list`
>>> files placed in `/etc/apt/sources.list.d/`.
>>>
>>> +[[repository_management]]
>>> Repository Management
>>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>
>> Since we already have the auto-generated "_repository_management"
>> anchor, I would keep it, but manually define it here. This way we do not
>> break any existing references to this part of the admin guide.
>
> In this case adding "_repository_management" seems fine to me, although
> our forum shows only 2 results for it.
I would not take the forum as a benchmark. Once we have an anchor for a
deep link, we should preserve it if possible to not break any deep links
that we are not aware of. Nothing worse than links not working anymore
as expected.
_______________________________________________
pve-devel mailing list
pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com
https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel