Back before apt-file existed I always kept a personal copy of Contents.gz in
my $HOME, that I would update as needed. So I guess I agree with the submitter
of #320313 that it would be nice if users could do their own apt-file update.
Consider the following
* apt-cache doesn't allow non-root to apt-get update and change the
system's view of the archive
* allowing users to apt-file update with the current design would mean
they were changing the system copy which might surprise people
The submitter's idea of letting the user specify a separate cache might be OK,
but might be tricky to implement (would they get their own apt-file.conf
too?). One way that I make this less of a concern for apt-cache on my systems
is that I use cron-apt and it runs an apt-get update daily anyway, so mortal
users always have results that are no more than 24 hours old. Maybe apt-file
could have an optional cron job as a short term way of fixing this? Does it's
update mechanism regrab the entire Contents.gz or is it smarter than that?
What kind of load does this add to mirrors?
Longer term the suggested "--cache" change is a good wishlist idea for solving
this, and has other uses too (users could have multiple caches maybe for
multiple releases, etc).
--
Matt Taggart
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
