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 EA4D690F2F for ; Wed, 3 Apr 2024 10:20:23 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id C7D1313C26 for ; Wed, 3 Apr 2024 10:19:53 +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 ; Wed, 3 Apr 2024 10:19:53 +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 0F60E44C9E for ; Wed, 3 Apr 2024 10:19:53 +0200 (CEST) Date: Wed, 3 Apr 2024 10:19:52 +0200 From: Christoph Heiss To: Aaron Lauterer Cc: Proxmox VE development discussion Message-ID: References: <20240328135028.504520-1-a.lauterer@proxmox.com> <76606273-15d8-46c8-836a-bb23276bf2ca@proxmox.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <76606273-15d8-46c8-836a-bb23276bf2ca@proxmox.com> X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL -0.000 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 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 03 Apr 2024 08:20:24 -0000 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.