Commit
This commit does not belong to any branch on this repository, and may belong to a fork outside of the repository.
* Expand the universe of known shas to include the .xz archive shas. I have explicitly added keys for the files with the extension explicitly on the file key. The point of this is to (in a future change) allow tar.xz archives to be used instead of tar.gz archives. This change keeps compatiblity with the old keys that assume the tar.gz archives. I don't know if this is something that we should drop in the future or just not worry about. * Enable xz archive support. XZ archives are about half the size of the gz equivalents. This improves the cold repo bootstrap case a fair amount. Co-authored-by: Daniel Wagner-Hall <dwagnerhall@apple.com>
- Loading branch information
841fc6f
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
It looks like this broke the ability to use rules_rust with a nightly channel: in the following example, I have a local checkout of the rules_rust git repo over at
/usr/local/google/home/krasimir/rust/krasimirgg-git/rules_rust
synced to this commit and try to use it in a repository with a nightly version. The error says:Prefix "2022-04-01/rust-nightly-x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/rustc" was given, but not found in the archive. Here are possible prefixes for this archive: "rust-nightly-x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu".
This setup worked with the parent rules_rust commit.841fc6f
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I'll have to look into this. Having said that, it may take some time. Can you please look into the generated known shas and see what is missing? Knowing that would help me. I suspect this may have to do with a difference between how nightly keys are generated vs the normal keys. The fix is probably in the shell script that generates the keys. It would be lovely if you could take a look and see if you could fix it.
Thanks,
wt
841fc6f
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
It could also be the part of the code that extracts the archive. Honestly, I am not sure why we don't use download_and_extract instead of manually downloading and separately extracting. I'd have to look into that.
841fc6f
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Thanks! I've tracked it down to the extraction logic, sent #1302 to hopefully fix this.