shadowdaoandClaude Opus 5
5d16b5713d
Secret Scan / scan (push) Successful in 4s
Build App (Preview) / compute-version (pull_request) Successful in 6s
Secret Scan / scan (pull_request) Successful in 6s
Build App (Preview) / create-release (pull_request) Successful in 2s
Build App (Preview) / build-macos (pull_request) Successful in 2m45s
Build App (Preview) / build-windows (pull_request) Successful in 4m45s
Build App (Preview) / build-linux (pull_request) Successful in 7m38s
Build App (Preview) / prune-previews (pull_request) Successful in 4s
Build Container / build-container (pull_request) Successful in 14m48s
The multi-arch build needs the `docker-container` driver — the plain `docker` driver cannot do linux/amd64+linux/arm64 — and that driver runs BuildKit in its own container on Docker's default bridge. act_runner advertises ACTIONS_CACHE_URL as an address the *job* container can reach, and nothing teaches the BuildKit container about it. So the job could reach 192.168.1.126:40649 while the container actually making the cache request could not. That is also why no other workflow here hit this: it is the only one using buildx. The rest make their cache calls from the job container act_runner set up. `no route to host` is EHOSTUNREACH — a firewall rejecting, not a missing route — which is what a default firewalld zone does to traffic from the docker bridge, and the runner registers under the stock RHEL/Fedora hostname. Sharing the host's namespace sidesteps it: the cache address becomes local to BuildKit. No effect on runners where this already worked. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_0145mQi9NZiCDrznBUEEDE4n