Currently have provider issues with the connection. It's reported and should be solved today, but no guarantees.
Arch uses it, and why shouldn't they, its a documented feature.
You would still have overlapping versions, just further…
True, but there are a lot of weird edge cases I would like to avoid.
For example, suppose the Arch version for an imaginary package is 22.6.0-1.
If I understand correctly, with this scheme…
I guess he wants to say, instead of setting .1 for each rebuild, set .2 for V2, .3 for v3 and .4 for v4. That way, the highest feature level will always be the one that gets used, no matter…
I'm not quite following. We already do this, right? How is that related to the repo ordering?
The scope of this project was to compile official packages. I think compiling AUR packages is outside the scope of ALHP.
I'm not that familiar with the chaotic project, but I would suggest…
Yeah I also noticed that the current order could be optimized. We could also include a hint that lower repo levels can be used as fallback repos if a package fail on a higher level. For example:
…
I have purged the affected URLs. If someone can still reproduce, please let me know if its fixed.
Probably a bad cache then? I'll purge these files, maybe that will help.
Is the problem still there after you deleted the files and redownloaded them?