Non-Interactive Update Option (update -y) #990

Closed
opened 2026-02-04 22:26:06 +03:00 by OVERLORD · 4 comments
Owner

Originally created by @AdnerVL on GitHub (May 20, 2025).

🌟 Briefly describe the feature

Add non-interactive updates to PVE Helper-Scripts

📝 Detailed description

I propose adding a non-interactive update option, such as update -y, to the PVE Helper-Scripts. This would automatically select "YES (Silent Mode)" (Option 1) in the update menu, streamlining maintenance for users managing multiple LXC containers.

💡 Why is this useful?

Efficiency: Simplifies batch updates across containers.
User Control: Maintains security by requiring explicit command invocation.
Consistency: Aligns with common CLI conventions (e.g., apt-get -y).

Originally created by @AdnerVL on GitHub (May 20, 2025). ### 🌟 Briefly describe the feature Add non-interactive updates to PVE Helper-Scripts ### 📝 Detailed description I propose adding a non-interactive update option, such as update -y, to the PVE Helper-Scripts. This would automatically select "YES (Silent Mode)" (Option 1) in the update menu, streamlining maintenance for users managing multiple LXC containers. ### 💡 Why is this useful? Efficiency: Simplifies batch updates across containers. User Control: Maintains security by requiring explicit command invocation. Consistency: Aligns with common CLI conventions (e.g., apt-get -y).
OVERLORD added the enhancement label 2026-02-04 22:26:06 +03:00
Author
Owner

@MickLesk commented on GitHub (May 20, 2025):

Nope. Thats not the Goal.

@MickLesk commented on GitHub (May 20, 2025): Nope. Thats not the Goal.
Author
Owner

@AdnerVL commented on GitHub (May 20, 2025):

Thanks for reviewing the request. Could you share why it doesn't fit the project's goals? This would help me align future suggestions

@AdnerVL commented on GitHub (May 20, 2025): Thanks for reviewing the request. Could you share why it doesn't fit the project's goals? This would help me align future suggestions
Author
Owner

@MickLesk commented on GitHub (May 20, 2025):

The whole topic has already been addressed several times. It is basically quite simple to explain

  1. as long as there is no snapshot option, it is fatal
  2. automatic updates of entire apps could destroy something at any time. (network problems, npm, pnpm etc. pp).
  3. there is no rollback mechanism

Conclusion: our repo is flooded with issues because most users are not tech savvy enough to understand what the problem is. (80% of the current issues are pure network problems which then destroy LXC's). And in addition, we have 340 scripts that have to be constantly scanned to see if there are any breaking changes. We also have no infrastructure to keep every LXC running permanently in order to possibly test the function with every update. Ultimately, we are only volunteers and the number of PRs from others is negligible (unfortunately), we simply cannot guarantee that.

Alternative:
Everyone can have a look at the App.sh and build a cronjob based on the update_script part, which reproduces the desired behavior.

@MickLesk commented on GitHub (May 20, 2025): The whole topic has already been addressed several times. It is basically quite simple to explain 1) as long as there is no snapshot option, it is fatal 2) automatic updates of entire apps could destroy something at any time. (network problems, npm, pnpm etc. pp). 3) there is no rollback mechanism **Conclusion**: our repo is flooded with issues because most users are not tech savvy enough to understand what the problem is. (80% of the current issues are pure network problems which then destroy LXC's). And in addition, we have 340 scripts that have to be constantly scanned to see if there are any breaking changes. We also have no infrastructure to keep every LXC running permanently in order to possibly test the function with every update. Ultimately, we are only volunteers and the number of PRs from others is negligible (unfortunately), we simply cannot guarantee that. **Alternative:** Everyone can have a look at the App.sh and build a cronjob based on the update_script part, which reproduces the desired behavior.
Author
Owner

@AdnerVL commented on GitHub (May 20, 2025):

I understand, the alternative sound good, hope to see it in the near future, Thanks

@AdnerVL commented on GitHub (May 20, 2025): I understand, the alternative sound good, hope to see it in the near future, Thanks
Sign in to join this conversation.
1 Participants
Notifications
Due Date
No due date set.
Dependencies

No dependencies set.

Reference: starred/ProxmoxVE#990