Re: [PATCH] ci: install P4 from package to fix build error

> On Fri, 6 Sep 2019, SZEDER Gábor wrote:
> 
> > On Fri, Sep 06, 2019 at 12:27:11PM +0200, SZEDER Gábor wrote:
> > > To test 'git-p4' in the Linux Clang and GCC build jobs we used to
> > > install the 'p4' and 'p4d' binaries by directly downloading those
> > > binaries from a Perforce filehost.  This has worked just fine ever
> > > since we started using Travis CI [1], but during the last day or so
> > > that filehost appeared to be gone: while its hostname still resolves,
> > > the host doesn't seem to reply to any download request, it doesn't
> > > even refuse the connection, and eventually our build jobs time out
> > > [2].
> > >
> > > Now, this might be just a temporary glitch, but I'm afraid that it
> > > isn't.
> >
> > Well, now would you believe it, while I was testing this patch (I even
> > made a gitgitgadget PR to run it on Azure Pipelines! :) and touching
> > up its log message the good old Perforce filehost sprang back to life,
> > and the CI build jobs now succeed again even without this patch.
> 
> Sorry for being so slow with granting you access to GitGitGadget. FWIW
> _anybody_ who already was granted access can issue `/allow` commands, it
> is not just me.

> > > Let's install P4 from the package repository, because this approach
> > > seems to be simpler and more future proof.
> > >
> > > Note that we used to install an old P4 version (2016.2) in the Linux
> > > build jobs, but with this change we'll install the most recent version
> > > available in the Perforce package repository (currently 2019.1).
> >
> > So I'm not quite sure whether we really want this patch.  It depends
> > on how important it is to test 'git-p4' with an old P4 version, but I
> > don't really have an opinion on that.
> 
> I'd rather have that patch. It seems to be a much better idea to use the
> package management system than to rely on one host, especially when said
> host already displayed hiccups.