On Wed, Nov 27, 2024 at 10:31:13AM -0800, Pierrick Bouvier wrote: > On 11/27/24 01:06, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 26, 2024 at 04:54:18PM -0600, Richard Henderson wrote: > > > On 11/26/24 11:52, Thomas Huth wrote: > > > > I think we want to continue to maek failing downloads as test failures, > > > > otherwise we'll never notice when an asset is not available from the > > > > internet anymore (since SKIPs just get ignored). > > > > > > I disagree. Download failures are not rare. > > > > Failures of the test to download assets will be rare *if* we have the > > CI runner cache fixed. We only need to successfully download each > > asset once, and it should be cached forever with no expiry timeout. > > > > So we have an initially bootstrapping problem once caching is fixed, > > where download failures could impact us. Once the cache is primed, > > we'll only be at risk of download failures when introducing new > > asset URLs, so I think it is fair to say failures should be rare > > *if* we get the caching fixed. > > > > With regards, > > Daniel > > Beyond the QEMU CI, we should think about users trying to run tests, and > having the same kind of problems, but without having access to the magic > cache. > > Regarding the assets download, why don't we mirror them somewhere reliable > instead of relying on third party storage?
If QEMU hosts these files, then QEMU is liable for license compliance, IOW, we have to identify & potentially host the full & corresponding source for all binaries in the images. This is not a business we want to be involved in as a project. With regards, Daniel -- |: https://berrange.com -o- https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange :| |: https://libvirt.org -o- https://fstop138.berrange.com :| |: https://entangle-photo.org -o- https://www.instagram.com/dberrange :|
