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 [212.224.123.68]) by lore.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CEE081FF16F for <inbox@lore.proxmox.com>; Fri, 15 Nov 2024 14:43:53 +0100 (CET) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id DC1EF148D2; Fri, 15 Nov 2024 14:43:56 +0100 (CET) Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2024 14:43:54 +0100 From: Christoph Heiss <c.heiss@proxmox.com> To: Thomas Lamprecht <t.lamprecht@proxmox.com> Message-ID: <xwlmjeb5mycrobzubkueuwd7vibukzht6hv7kv3vkmuoltlxdn@pkeakkgbo4gg> References: <20241113135908.1622968-1-c.heiss@proxmox.com> <20241113135908.1622968-3-c.heiss@proxmox.com> <aa60f5c8-09be-4bed-8e55-4ba6c5050cd9@proxmox.com> <uwoqcrxycmq4eyaq5pv5gld7cnc5ujzim5x4d6rfj5ibl6rpun@do7xojezweya> <06e094bf-656a-41b7-9697-35e1c8e766b1@proxmox.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <06e094bf-656a-41b7-9697-35e1c8e766b1@proxmox.com> X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.029 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] [RFC PATCH installer 2/5] fix #5579: first-boot: add initial service packaging 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> Cc: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: pve-devel-bounces@lists.proxmox.com Sender: "pve-devel" <pve-devel-bounces@lists.proxmox.com> On Fri, Nov 15, 2024 at 02:39:16PM +0100, Thomas Lamprecht wrote: > Am 15.11.24 um 14:34 schrieb Christoph Heiss: > > On Thu, Nov 14, 2024 at 09:23:48PM +0100, Thomas Lamprecht wrote: > >> [..] > >> So it really would be great to allow overriding that ordering. > >> > >> Simplest way might be to leave it out here, or well go for the default we want > >> (in doubt -> dice roll), and write out a systemd unit snippet during installation > >> depending on a additional setting from the answer file. > > > > Thinking about this again, while implementing - if we need to customize > > the unit file, do we want to: > > > > - create an `override.conf` file in > > `/etc/systemd/system/proxmox-first-boot.service.d/`, like systemd > > would do it when using `systemctl edit <service>`? > > Disadvantage is, that that file isn't removed when removing the > > `proxmox-first-boot` package from the system (although we could do it > > via postrm maybe?) > > I'd either use above or as an additional alternative: ship the different > variants as separate complete unit files with a common Alias (to convey > that they're the "same" thing) and enable only the one (manually) that is > configured. That would keep every file fully covered by the package > system. Didn't think of that variant, good idea! Thanks! Should really cover all the cases I think and leave no files unmanaged. (Also, TIL about Alias=) _______________________________________________ pve-devel mailing list pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel