Bug 657320 – sys-apps/portage-2.3.40: Manifest verification fails on rsync due to update marker

• Product: Portage Development
• Status: CONFIRMED ---

[Description Fabian Groffen 2018-06-04 06:32:57 UTC]

!!! Manifest verification failed:
Manifest mismatch for Archive-Update-in-Progress-kruimel.snt.utwente.nl
  __exists__: expected: False, have: True

It seems like we need to retry the rsync when such file exists.  Verification errors are likely to exist for syncs like these even if we would ignore this file.

[Comment 1 Zac Medico 2018-06-04 07:22:05 UTC]

Where does this Archive-Update-in-Progress-kruimel.snt.utwente.nl file come from?

[Comment 2 Fabian Groffen 2018-06-04 09:39:42 UTC]

kruimel.snt.utwente.nl (aka rsync.nl.gentoo.org) adds this apparently

[Comment 3 Zac Medico 2018-06-04 15:20:50 UTC]

I think we probably don't want to handle this on the client side. It's possible to atomically swap rsync trees on the server side, by using rename to atomically update the rsyncd config so that it points to the new tree.

[Comment 4 Fabian Groffen 2020-02-02 16:11:40 UTC]

I've accepted this as the new normal

[Comment 5 Zac Medico 2020-02-02 22:47:01 UTC]

Yeah, it's hard to justify client side handling when atomic swap is relatively easy to implement on the server side.

[Comment 6 Fabian Groffen 2020-02-03 07:13:47 UTC]

Yes, but we don't control the server(s), yet add them to your official pools.  End of story, as user I get a failure pretty much every time I sync.

We can only work around the fact we don't have read-only atomic deltas on the client.

[Comment 7 Zac Medico 2020-02-03 07:32:33 UTC]

We should add a retry option.