You are not logged in.

#1 Re: Mirrors » Mirror Pool » 2017-11-28 23:09:48

I don't want to disable HSTS.
But it forcing https shouldn't be an issue I think, the certificates is valid.

#2 Re: Mirrors » Mirror Pool » 2017-11-28 12:51:33

I think I fixed the configuration on archlinux32.mirror.roelf.org. Can somebody verify it works for them?

#3 Re: Installation » where can i get the rootfs of archlinux32 ? » 2017-11-23 07:50:12

I had a quick glance at your script, I would suggest adding more than one mirror to your mirrorlist.
Reasons being to avoid overloading a single server (should your docker image become popular) and to handle downtime of that single server.

#4 Re: Installation » where can i get the rootfs of archlinux32 ? » 2017-11-22 17:55:02

You should easily be able to create one.

Just pacstrap into a directory and gz it.

#5 Re: Creating/Maintaining Packages » i686 only? » 2017-11-13 07:30:13

Will we build and host packages for x86_64?
As far as I am aware, there are not any plans to do so. That's what the upstream archlinux is for.

We will, however, attempt to build as many of the packages in upstream arch for i686 as we can.

#7 Re: Testing » Discussion of possible means of testing » 2017-06-20 20:05:05

tyzoid wrote:
rewbycraft wrote:

If nothing else, we could easily reproduce the "Does it boot?" iso test by just starting a VM and seeing if we can ping it within say 5 minutes.

This could work quite well as a baseline test. 5 minutes is a bit excessive, but that could be determined empirically.

I agree, it was somewhat of a random number for illustration purposes. That said, 5 minutes would account for potential issues in case the testing machines are overloaded.

tyzoid wrote:
rewbycraft wrote:

We could potentially put some stuff in place to automatically refuse to move from testing->core if check() fails.

If I remember correctly, we don't push anything into staging/testing that fails check in the first place.

At the moment, yes.
But one of the points posed in the original post was:

deep42thought wrote:

Furthermore, the question is, how we can automate those tests.

So I figure that we may at some point automate the testing -> stable progression. In which case such a check would be a good idea.

#8 Re: Testing » Discussion of possible means of testing » 2017-06-20 16:44:44

It would potentially be worth the effort to go and poke the ALarm people.

If nothing else, we could easily reproduce the "Does it boot?" iso test by just starting a VM and seeing if we can ping it within say 5 minutes.

We could potentially put some stuff in place to automatically refuse to move from testing->core if check() fails.

Board footer

Powered by FluxBB