Not picking up 23.1.5_2 hotfix from mirror

[benyamin]

I can see the hotfix package on the mirror.dns-root.de mirror, but checking for updates does not prompt to upgrade.

From what I can tell, my auto update occurred right before the hotfix announcement.

I ended up running the following instead:

Code: [Select]

opnsense-patch 637bc31
opnsense-patch 4bc36a4
opnsense-patch e2dada5
opnsense-patch 3586e70
...and then rebooting.

Is that expected behaviour, i.e. for the hotfix to not be picked up?

[franco]

For the Cloudflare mirror this is expected. It relies on sub-par cache mechanisms that seem to save more bandwidth than focus on correctness of what is being served.


Cheers,
Franco

[benyamin]

Ok, it's weird because you can see the package when you browse the tree.

Regretting this comment now. Methinks I was a bit quick shutting down @Greelan...

My closest neighbour is the NZ mirror.catalyst.net.nz, which is ~55ms for me...

It's up to date but not in the list so I had to add the custom URI, https://mirror.catalyst.net.nz/opnsense.

As for the others: mirror.venturasystems.tech in Colombia is quickest @ ~11ms..! No opnsense, only suricata. Probably Cloudflare anyway, as the Cloudflare mirror (mirror.dns-root.de) is also ~11ms. Probably the same for fourdots.com in Serbia at ~11ms too, but got various pkg errors, including missing repository. The next best after NZ is mirror.sfo12.us.leaseweb.net (West Coast US) at ~175ms, which works, but is not HTTPS, and is slower for me.

NZ for now...

[benyamin]

Oh, and Cloudflare (mirror.dns-root.de) still isn't offering 23.1.5_2..! 

[franco]

From my end it looks ok but that's probably a different "physical" server I'm seeing.

Cloudflare mirror has its use but also has these quirks that cannot be worked around. It it what it is.


Cheers,
Franco

[benyamin]

Just weird I can download the named package in a browser. Perhaps the metadata wasn't updated yet on my local server... Anyway, like you said Franco, it is what it is.

The NZ mirror seems to be working well for now.

[franco]

Yes, that's exactly what they do: serve you the old metadata, likely because the file size looks the same. That it's not factoring in timestamps or file hash is the actual technical weirdness in this "approach".


Cheers,
Franco