From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [212.224.123.68]) by lore.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 791891FF184 for ; Thu, 18 Dec 2025 16:03:45 +0100 (CET) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 8204C1FA59; Thu, 18 Dec 2025 16:04:32 +0100 (CET) From: Maximiliano Sandoval To: Thomas Lamprecht In-Reply-To: <66795e25-297c-4382-95a6-95ba687586b7@proxmox.com> (Thomas Lamprecht's message of "Thu, 18 Dec 2025 15:09:21 +0100") References: <20251217150620.829190-1-m.sandoval@proxmox.com> <2fb16dd6-8af4-4d95-a9d4-a78e65c6f5ba@proxmox.com> <66795e25-297c-4382-95a6-95ba687586b7@proxmox.com> User-Agent: mu4e 1.12.9; emacs 30.1 Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2025 16:04:28 +0100 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Bm-Milter-Handled: 55990f41-d878-4baa-be0a-ee34c49e34d2 X-Bm-Transport-Timestamp: 1766070256786 X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.092 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 KAM_SHORT 0.001 Use of a URL Shortener for very short URL SPF_HELO_NONE 0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record SPF_PASS -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record Subject: [pve-devel] superseded: [PATCH container] fix #7156: setup: separate dns list with semicolons X-BeenThere: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list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: , Reply-To: Proxmox VE development discussion Cc: Proxmox VE development discussion Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: pve-devel-bounces@lists.proxmox.com Sender: "pve-devel" Thomas Lamprecht writes: > On 18/12/2025 09:21, Maximiliano Sandoval wrote: >> Yes, but the quote is from the nm-settings man page. GLib's .ini format >> allows to decide which separator to use **globally**, see [2], it does >> not allow for some lists will be handled with one separator while others >> with another, not without out-of-tree parsing at least. There are some >> exceptions in nm-settings though, but they are mentioned in the man page >> and are not handled as lists, namely: >> >> ``` >> Also, some lists of complex values (addresses, routes, routing-rules), >> instead of using a semicolon separated list, use one key-value pair per >> list element, >> ``` >> >> [2] https://docs.gtk.org/glib/method.KeyFile.set_list_separator.html > > Oof... But in this should IMO then get added to the commit message, as > when I check the docs and see examples with either variant, but without > having mentioned that it depends which variant is OK when, then any > rationale in the commit messages helps me a ton to figure that out for > myself quickly. > > Do you mind re-sending this with the commit message amended? Maybe we can > also introduce a local glib_join_list helper that is basically just a > wrapper like sub { return join(';', @_); } with a comment above? > We have quite some distros we support here and things do change but in > varying rates, so such semantic helpers can be quite nice to have. > > Adding already a test case would be also appreciated, hopefully the > "src/test/test-centos10-001" one can be copied and adapted to cover > this case here. Superseded-by: https://lore.proxmox.com/all/20251218150126.832313-1-m.sandoval@proxmox.com/ -- Maximiliano _______________________________________________ pve-devel mailing list pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel