On Fri, Apr 01, 2005 at 03:24:00PM -0500, Eric Cooper wrote: > On Fri, Apr 01, 2005 at 09:39:19PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote: > > Eric, i was about to upload the approx package, since i have been > > using it since a couple weeks, but noticed that syslog-ocaml was not > > in the archive, nor in the NEW queue. Do you know if it was already > > uploaded, or not ? In the later case i would upload both of them. > > I didn't do anything other than check the package into svn, and > haven't seen any emails about anyone else uploading it.
Ok, i will upload them. > > Also, what is your preference for the maintainer/uploader fields ? > > You as maintainer and me as uploader, or the debian/ocaml task force > > as maintainer and me as uploader ? I am not sure you will directly > > get bug reports in the second case, but they will go to the > > debian-ocaml-maint mailing list, where you could get them. > > I am happy with either approach; if most packages use the task force > as maintainer, it would be best to conform to that. Ok. > > Also, it mostly worked fine, but that little problem you mentioned > > apparently caused debian|ubuntu-installer to barf when doing the > > base-install, and since it has not-nice error recovery mode ... Hand > > going in the chroot and doing an apt-get update did install the > > problematic packages, but this is not enough for the installer. Any > > idea of what this problem is. > > No, this has continued to elude me. The corruption is always zero or > more lines of HTTP headers, followed by an empty (CRLF) line, before > the correct data. And it's not reproducible just by removing the file > from the cache and re-fetching it. It seems to go away when all the > [flush] calls are removed from Stefano's ocaml-http (but that may just be > masking the problem somehow). Not cool, we will probably get bug reports about this one. > > Also, i was wondering if a router could be setup in such a way to > > transparently redirect a call to the archive to a call to approx, > > but this seems complicated to me, since we don't really have apt-get > > specific protocol or something to filter. > > I'm not sure what you want to do (or why), but perhaps the Apache > configuration on the archive can be tweaked to allow this. Otherwise, > some other HTTP-level entity, like another proxy or load balancer, > would have to be involved. Well, the idea was for an outgoing router/firewall/whatever, to automatically intercept a apt-get http call, and transfer it to the proxy instead. I am not sure this is possible though without a bigger logic than we have available in most such routers, and in any case beyond the possibilities of my adsl modem/router box. Would be nice though. Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
