You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
In the context of archlinux/infrastructure#531 we are currently thinking about whether packages appearing on the Archive with some delay could cause issues for the repro infrastructure 🤔
As far as we understand it right now the packages are exclusively synced from the archive:
In the new setup that could cause some issues if the rebuilder picks up the package faster than it is synced to the archive. So we wanted to ask about input to this, would it be good just to add a fallback to the T0 or geo mirrors? Or some kind of retry mechanism..? 🤔
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
I also think it'd be fine, the scheduler part of the repro infra has a retry mechanism, so if the first attempt fails it's going to try again after some time.
This was also common back when we had to wait until the PKGBUILD became available in the svntogit repo. It causes a "Packages which have become not reproducible" email notification though.
In the context of archlinux/infrastructure#531 we are currently thinking about whether packages appearing on the Archive with some delay could cause issues for the repro infrastructure 🤔
As far as we understand it right now the packages are exclusively synced from the archive:
archlinux-repro/repro.in
Line 24 in 6e8cee9
archlinux-repro/buildinfo
Line 72 in 6e8cee9
In the new setup that could cause some issues if the rebuilder picks up the package faster than it is synced to the archive. So we wanted to ask about input to this, would it be good just to add a fallback to the T0 or geo mirrors? Or some kind of retry mechanism..? 🤔
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: