Nate Bargmann wrote: > * Michael <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007 Aug 27 09:05 -0500]: > > I ran apt-proxy for years and it's actually a quite cool thing. > > But it's designed for serving many hosts (on a LAN).
The old original apt-proxy was quite good. The new rewritten in apt-proxy I had problems with and switched to apt-cacher. Then apt-cacher has been having creeping featurism and has been breaking for me. I am now going to look into switching to approx. Others use Squid web proxies to cache the files. > > For home usage, updating laptops from a PC, it's way too much > > admin overhead IMHO. I disagree that it is too much overhead. When the proxies were simple and worked then everything was simple and it worked.(!) The overhead was acceptable. It is only when there are problems that cause it not to be worthwhile. Whether all of this is worth is really depends upon your download speed and the remote depot response time. A slow connection makes it worthwhile even when there are problems. > > You always have to care to sync two config dirs (apt and > > apt-proxy), apt-cacher avoids the apt-proxy configuration and is a transparent proxy. > > adjust the firewall, deal with update troubles (for > > example, python), and so on. The older apt-proxy was written in portable shell. One of my problems with the new apt-proxy is that now that it has been written in python it has also been broken by python instabilities. In any case I am suffering through apt-cacher Bug#385961 right now. > That's kind of what I figured. The two other machines are remote and > nowhere close to a LAN. It's as easy to burn the .deb files to CD and > copy them manually as any other method for me. Look into 'apt-move'. You can use it to build an apt depot from a directory of deb files, such as /var/cache/apt/archives/. Bob -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
