On 5/17/20 11:03 PM, Arnout Engelen wrote: > On Sun, May 17, 2020 at 10:44 PM Thomas Lamprecht <tho...@lamprecht.org> > wrote: >> Am 5/17/20 um 10:10 AM schrieb Arnout Engelen: >>> It would make the scenario of starting an unmanaged image without explicit >>> parameters work. >> >> I'd rather add recognizing an explicit "unmanaged" type from the CTs >> `/etc/os-release` or if really only return this on setup if there's no >> os-release >> and no other releasefile, which then at least ensures that modern >> distros (which >> most ship /etc/os-release) are wrongly mapped to "unmanaged". > > Requiring an explicit "unmanaged" in `/etc/os-release` means proxmox will only > auto-detect CTs that were explicitly written for proxmox... only falling back > to > 'unmanaged' when /etc/os-release does not exist sounds fine to me, though.
I mean, if you use such CTs already then they got created for a specific use case and thus adding some extra file, hint or whatever.. I mean, I do not like that approach 100%, but it would make it explicit which seems much better. > > I'll create an updated version of this patch that implements these 2 paths. > >> Fallback in update_pct_config for when no ostype is set in the config >> for existing >> CT is not OK, it must be recognizable on setup. > > Right, I was less sure about that part. > >>> When using the 'create CT' button in the web UI, PVE/LXC/Setup.pm will >>> auto-detect the ostype. >>> >>> (...) >>> >>> While I agree failing early is generally good practice, here running the >>> image 'unmanaged' when no OS was detected seems like a more >>> optimistic choice, as it fixes the 'raw unmanaged image' scenario. >> >> This is something most user won't ever need.. Why is it a problem to set the >> unmanaged OS type through CLI/API? > > AFAICT the 'create CT' web UI does not currently allow setting the ostype. > This of course could be changed/fixed, but the auto-detection that is already > there seems nice. I haven't used the API yet, and wanted to avoid using the > CLI (which requires root) where possible (though it looks like I'll have to > compromise there to get access to some features anyway ;) ). > >From our POV it's a feature, we support a set of distributions which we can all detect in a sane way. All unsupported cannot really get made to work easily over the web-interface anyway. For what specific use case do you want this? What would be running in the CTs? Maybe it's easier to add support for that distro? cheers, Thomas _______________________________________________ pve-devel mailing list pve-devel@pve.proxmox.com https://pve.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel
