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)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7078F7CC93 for ; Sat, 6 Nov 2021 16:39:49 +0100 (CET) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 64E9E1621F for ; Sat, 6 Nov 2021 16:39:49 +0100 (CET) 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 id B7DE416210 for ; Sat, 6 Nov 2021 16:39:48 +0100 (CET) Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 88F9A45D63 for ; Sat, 6 Nov 2021 16:39:42 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: Date: Sat, 6 Nov 2021 16:39:41 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:95.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/95.0 Content-Language: en-US To: Oguz Bektas , Proxmox VE development discussion References: <20211104131954.958249-1-o.bektas@proxmox.com> <489d6b8c-2628-3eb1-a05b-2fd69c239f67@proxmox.com> From: Thomas Lamprecht In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 1.207 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 NICE_REPLY_A -2.093 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 manager] lxc: add 'unmanaged' checkbox in wizard 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: Sat, 06 Nov 2021 15:39:49 -0000 On 04.11.21 15:01, Oguz Bektas wrote: > On Thu, Nov 04, 2021 at 02:58:25PM +0100, Thomas Lamprecht wrote: >> On 04.11.21 14:19, Oguz Bektas wrote: >>> to allow creating containers with 'unmanaged' ostype easily in GUI. >>> that way we can use other unsupported templates in the GUI as well. >> >> it's rather an advanced option, but I'm not even sure I want it there, >> unmanaged CTs are def. not the norm. Is there any user demand for this? > > no feature request or the like. > but it adds more flexibility to the GUI, e.g. you wouldn't have to > create your container from the command line when using a custom > (unsupported) distribution template. 1. it crowds the interface more for an very rare use case that nobody expressed their desire for yet, that alone can often be an anti-feature. 2. more important, it may easily get ticked by unknowing users, as its probably not exactly clear what it actually does to a big chunk of users (its not a standard action) - especially as one then can still configure the network, dns and other things but they simply won't have any effect anymore, that's not good UX.. Further, note that we already automatically fall-back to `unmanaged` and also accept it as unmanaged if denoted as such in the `/etc/os-release` file, that's enough flexibility for an odd use-case, any user can prepare their archives to match that, else they can always use the CLI or API. > > i thought about hiding it behind "Advanced" as well but it seems that > doesn't work at all on the container wizard? 1. If we'd really add it (and I'm not agreeing on that currently), it'd belong into the `Template` panel, there the appliance selection (for which this is relevant) happens. 2. The advanced mode works in general just fine in the CT wizard, e.g., see the Disks and CPU tabs. The advanced mechanism is a shared feature between the EditWindow (control the checkbox) and InputPanel (holds the advanced items) components, maybe you did not added it in an InputPanel or used the wrong config properties, hard to tell without seeing code ;-)