SVI/ProxmoxVE
1
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://github.com/community-scripts/ProxmoxVE.git synced 2026-05-12 11:12:15 -04:00
Code Issues 2.6k Packages Projects Releases 10 Wiki Activity

post-{pve,pbs,pmg}-install.sh does not provide for removal of created APT hook #916

New Issue
Closed
opened 2025-11-20 04:56:30 -05:00 by saavagebueno · 4 comments
saavagebueno commented 2025-11-20 04:56:30 -05:00
Owner
Copy Link

Originally created by @free-pmx on GitHub (Apr 13, 2025).

📌 Task summary

improve discoverability, provide removal Q/A flow for no-nag-script

📋 Task details

  1. The creation of /etc/apt/apt.conf.d/no-nag-script is not announced to the user;
  2. The hook does not advertise its presence on the system on every run, only when condition met;
  3. There is no Q/A flow that would allow the user to remove the APT hook.

Any of the above would help with discoverability, but particularly (3) is logically missing and unexpected. (e.g. HA disable feature provides for re-enabling) by subsequent run.

Cheers!

Originally created by @free-pmx on GitHub (Apr 13, 2025). ### 📌 Task summary improve discoverability, provide removal Q/A flow for no-nag-script ### 📋 Task details 1. The creation of `/etc/apt/apt.conf.d/no-nag-script` is not announced to the user; 2. The hook does not advertise its presence on the system on every run, only when condition met; 3. There is no Q/A flow that would allow the user to remove the APT hook. Any of the above would help with discoverability, but particularly (3) is logically missing and unexpected. (e.g. HA disable feature provides for re-enabling) by subsequent run. Cheers!
saavagebueno added the not a script issue label 2025-11-20 04:56:30 -05:00
saavagebueno commented 2025-11-20 04:56:30 -05:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@MickLesk commented on GitHub (Apr 13, 2025):

And what exactly is your problem now? That it should be removed? Then please make a PR. This is irrelevant to me, as it has nothing to do with the functionality of the script itself. It's a community project, which is why we rely on the community. For me it is uninteresting, or rather irrelevant.

@MickLesk commented on GitHub (Apr 13, 2025): And what exactly is your problem now? That it should be removed? Then please make a PR. This is irrelevant to me, as it has nothing to do with the functionality of the script itself. It's a community project, which is why we rely on the community. For me it is uninteresting, or rather irrelevant.
saavagebueno commented 2025-11-20 04:56:31 -05:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@free-pmx commented on GitHub (Apr 13, 2025):

Unhelpful, but noted.

@free-pmx commented on GitHub (Apr 13, 2025): Unhelpful, but noted.
saavagebueno commented 2025-11-20 04:56:31 -05:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@MickLesk commented on GitHub (Apr 13, 2025):

What does that have to do with unhelpful? I see you're dealing with it. Why should we always do everything? Anyone can create a PR here. Since you've dealt with it, can't you just push it in?

@MickLesk commented on GitHub (Apr 13, 2025): What does that have to do with unhelpful? I see you're dealing with it. Why should we always do everything? Anyone can create a PR here. Since you've dealt with it, can't you just push it in?
saavagebueno commented 2025-11-20 04:56:31 -05:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@free-pmx commented on GitHub (Apr 13, 2025):

What does that have to do with unhelpful?

The issue as filed was quite clear what the idea behind was, telling the filer to DIY is not a way to entice one.

I see you're dealing with it. Why should we always do everything?

I am not a user, I released a tool that does implement (partially) similar functionality, users asked me whether it will clash with the one you maintain. I did the part to investigate - it does not, but it leaves the skeleton in the closet - not nice for them. Then I did the second part and filed it already like I did. It's not a nice thing to ship code like that is presented as a one-off script, but leaves something like APT hook behind - in particular because the rest of cases appear covered (e.g. the HA disable/enable).

Anyone can create a PR here. Since you've dealt with it, can't you just push it in?

That would have been possible before the reaction I got, I am sorry. I am not here to antagonise anyone, but also do not need this. I made a brief post how to "clean up" after this script. I have absolutely no idea about your contributing process - if I made a PR, likely I would get it back because it's not the style you like it, then I have no idea how you want to continue shipping this. E.g. I would split this into separate scripts altogether so that it's modular. And I don't even do interactive scripts.

I get it's not your code, but I am not a maintainer here. I just literally made a factual issue report about what others encountered as an issue. If this is zero priority level, I guess it needs to wait closed till someone re-opens it.

@free-pmx commented on GitHub (Apr 13, 2025): > What does that have to do with unhelpful? The issue as filed was quite clear what the idea behind was, telling the filer to DIY is not a way to entice one. > I see you're dealing with it. Why should we always do everything? I am not a user, I released a tool that does implement (partially) similar functionality, users asked me whether it will clash with the one you maintain. I did the part to investigate - it does not, but it leaves the skeleton in the closet - not nice for them. Then I did the second part and filed it already like I did. It's not a nice thing to ship code like that is presented as a one-off script, but leaves something like APT hook behind - in particular because the rest of cases appear covered (e.g. the HA disable/enable). > Anyone can create a PR here. Since you've dealt with it, can't you just push it in? That would have been possible before the reaction I got, I am sorry. I am not here to antagonise anyone, but also do not need this. I made a brief post how to "clean up" after this script. I have absolutely no idea about your contributing process - if I made a PR, likely I would get it back because it's not the style you like it, then I have no idea how you want to continue shipping this. E.g. I would split this into separate scripts altogether so that it's modular. And I don't even do interactive scripts. I get it's not your code, but I am not a maintainer here. I just literally made a factual issue report about what others encountered as an issue. If this is zero priority level, I guess it needs to wait closed till someone re-opens it.
Sign in to join this conversation.
No Branch/Tag Specified
Branches Tags
Labels
Clear labels
🛑 Failure to comply with the guidelines
breaking change
bug
bug
bugfix
deferred
delete script
dependencies
enhancement
external
feature
github
help wanted
Implemented in VED waiting push to Main
in project pipeline
invalid
investigation
json
maintenance
new script
new script
nice to have
not a script issue
not planned
organization
pull-request
Mirrored from GitHub Pull Request
 question
refactor
rename script
security
update script
website
wontdo
No Label not a script issue
Milestone
No items
No Milestone
Projects
Clear projects
No project
Assignees
Clear assignees
saavagebueno
No Assignees
1 Participants
Notifications
Due Date
No due date set.
Dependencies

No dependencies set.

Reference: SVI/ProxmoxVE#916
Delete Branch "%!s()"

Deleting a branch is permanent. Although the deleted branch may continue to exist for a short time before it actually gets removed, it CANNOT be undone in most cases. Continue?