Run apt-get update to ensure we are using the current packages.
Hopefully this will remove the various
E: Failed to fetch http://something.deb 404 Not Found [IP: 35.184.213.5 80]
messages You can view, comment on, or merge this pull request online at:
https://github.com/OpenSmalltalk/opensmalltalk-vm/pull/261
-- Commit Summary --
* .travis_install.sh update
-- File Changes --
M .travis_install.sh (1)
-- Patch Links --
https://github.com/OpenSmalltalk/opensmalltalk-vm/pull/261.patch https://github.com/OpenSmalltalk/opensmalltalk-vm/pull/261.diff
@akgrant43 pushed 1 commit.
e6be769 .travis.yml allow apt-get update
@akgrant43 pushed 1 commit.
1c1fcee .travis_install.sh apt-get is linux specific
Error logs of linux builds for https://travis-ci.org/OpenSmalltalk/opensmalltalk-vm/jobs/378430866 (and onwards) state they try loading http://security.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/pool/main/g/gcc-4.8/libx32itm1_4.8.4-2ubun... while the file on server is http://security.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/pool/main/g/gcc-4.8/libx32itm1_4.8.4-2ubun... so an out-of-date package cache is the likely culprit?
Hmm, this seems like a travis problem then, too
so an out-of-date package cache is the likely culprit?
That's my guess, and why I tried this PR (which is admittedly experimental).
It would be good if someone could confirm that the changes make sense (I'm not familiar with travis at all).
Thanks, Alistair
@fniephaus do you have an idea?
I haven't seen those errors before, so I am also assuming that there was/is a problem on Travis' side. A quick look at they status page revealed [this incident](https://www.traviscistatus.com/incidents/fvch7h32ncf1) which mentions `apt-get update`-related problems.
@akgrant43 was this a temporary problem or does the problem still exist? And for how long have you seen these errors (hours/days/weeks)?
Best, Fabio
Hi Fabio,
The apt-get update issues mentioned on the [Travis page](https://www.traviscistatus.com/incidents/fvch7h32ncf1) match the symptoms we're seeing. My interpretation of what is written there is that this PR should be accepted now and reverted once Travis have their infrastructure issues sorted out.
The problem still existed as of a few hours ago. It looks like the first instance was a couple of days ago, but the last commit before that was 6 days ago - about the time the Travis reports the issue as arising.
Cheers, Alistair
@akgrant43 why merge and roll back later? I mean, why is this just a temporary fix? What are the disadvantages/advantages if we keep the commit?
why merge and roll back later? I mean, why is this just a temporary fix? What are the disadvantages/advantages if we keep the commit?
The advantage is that the script will survive Travis not updating the environment for us.
The disadvantages are:
- It's a bit slower (there's obviously more being done). - It increases slightly the chances that a temporary network problem will causes the build to fail.
Of course, there may be others that I haven't thought of.
I should also add that it isn't 100% clear to me that Travis will ever "fix" the issue. They may decide that if you want to install software you should do an update - they mention trying to automatically determine whether an install is done, and maybe our script isn't detected.
Cheers, Alistair
There doesn't seem to be any real opposition to this, it's a small update that can easily be reversed, so if there's no dissenting comment in the next 30 minutes I'll merge it in.
Cheers, Alistair
Merged #261.
vm-dev@lists.squeakfoundation.org
-
akgrant43 -
Fabio Niephaus
-
Rydier
-
Tobias Pape