Re: apt-proxy, apt-cacher approx
Thomas Goirand wrote: Hi, We've been using apt-proxy for about a year, and then found it quite buggy. So we moved to using apt-cacher. Now we have loads of problems with apt-cacher as well (like currently, a recurring tzdata size They will go away if you unlink the .deb file in /var/cache/apt-cacher/packages/. I've been using apt-cacher for over a year and despite some bugs it has worked fine. I've been tempted to give apt-cacher-ng a try, though. mismatch error). I was wondering if approx is any better than the other two. Did any of you try? Thomas Cheers, -- Atomo64 - Raphael Please avoid sending me Word, PowerPoint or Excel attachments. See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: apt-proxy, apt-cacher approx
On Monday 22 September 2008 15:20:20 Cameron Dale wrote: On Sun, Sep 21, 2008 at 10:14 PM, Thomas Goirand [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: We've been using apt-proxy for about a year, and then found it quite buggy. So we moved to using apt-cacher. Now we have loads of problems with apt-cacher as well (like currently, a recurring tzdata size mismatch error). I was wondering if approx is any better than the other two. Did any of you try? I have also experienced similar problems with both apt-proxy and -cacher. I am now using approx, and I can report no errors with it at all. It may be slightly slower, but that could be my imagination. I would definitely recommend approx. I agree, approx has served myself well for quite some time. Thanks, Kel. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: apt-proxy, apt-cacher approx
On Mon, September 22, 2008 08:11, Kel Modderman wrote: On Monday 22 September 2008 15:20:20 Cameron Dale wrote: On Sun, Sep 21, 2008 at 10:14 PM, Thomas Goirand [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: We've been using apt-proxy for about a year, and then found it quite buggy. So we moved to using apt-cacher. Now we have loads of problems with apt-cacher as well (like currently, a recurring tzdata size mismatch error). I was wondering if approx is any better than the other two. Did any of you try? I have also experienced similar problems with both apt-proxy and -cacher. I am now using approx, and I can report no errors with it at all. It may be slightly slower, but that could be my imagination. I would definitely recommend approx. I agree, approx has served myself well for quite some time. I had some caching issues with approx in etch. When I upgraded to the version from lenny in backports.org, that trouble went away and it runs smoothly. Just as a note there seems to be now a fourth alternative: apt-cacher-ng... Thijs -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: apt-proxy, apt-cacher approx
Hi, On Mon, Sep 22, 2008 at 01:14:42PM +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote: mismatch error). I was wondering if approx is any better than the other two. Did any of you try? I made similar observations with the use of apt-cacher and apt-proxy and therefore switched to approx. This is working like a charm for me since over a year. I'm using (except configured mirrors) a default conf. Best Regards, Patrick -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: apt-proxy, apt-cacher approx
On Mon, Sep 22, 2008 at 01:14:42PM +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote:
We've been using apt-proxy for about a year, and then found it quite
buggy. So we moved to using apt-cacher. Now we have loads of problems
with apt-cacher as well (like currently, a recurring tzdata size
mismatch error). I was wondering if approx is any better than the other
two. Did any of you try?
I switched from apt-proxy to apt-cacher-ng on Sid at home a few
months ago and it's been great. I am, unfortunately, not having the
best of luck backporting it to Etch for work (sunk a couple hours
into it Friday afternoon before heading home, but haven't picked it
back up again yet this morning). It seems to compile and run fine on
Etch, but it doesn't behave as advertised (503 errors and fails to
download/cache any requested files). I may just cut my losses and
run it on a Lenny machine instead.
--
{ IRL(Jeremy_Stanley); PGP(9E8DFF2E4F5995F8FEADDC5829ABF7441FB84657);
SMTP([EMAIL PROTECTED]); IRC([EMAIL PROTECTED]); ICQ(114362511);
AIM(dreadazathoth); YAHOO(crawlingchaoslabs); FINGER([EMAIL PROTECTED]);
MUD([EMAIL PROTECTED]:6669); WWW(http://fungi.yuggoth.org/); }
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: apt-proxy, apt-cacher approx
Hi Thomas, I just use squid and it works like charm. regards, Holger pgp2SZFG4JDaU.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: apt-proxy, apt-cacher approx
Holger Levsen wrote: Hi Thomas, I just use squid and it works like charm. regards, Holger I has a quite long discussion with my employee about it, and I really don't think that Squid is appropriate. First, I would have to deal with many ACL to make it limited to the Debian repository, and second, the way it selects what package to discard or to keep in the cache will never be as good as a cacher specially dedicated to Debian packages, that will keep only the most recent package for a given flavor (keeping the most recent package from backports, volatile, security, sid, etch, lenny etc., discarding all what is older than the most recent). So, if approx does the job, I will go for it. In fact, I already updated one of my caching-server with it, and if it does well the job, I will updated the others. Thomas P.S: I also had hard time doing a backport of the Lenny version of apt-cacher that depends on so many packages to be backported. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: apt-proxy, apt-cacher approx
Hello, On Tue, 23 Sep 2008, Thomas Goirand wrote: P.S: I also had hard time doing a backport of the Lenny version of apt-cacher that depends on so many packages to be backported. You can use schroot or chroot to run the lenny version of software under etch (for example http://linuxgazette.net/150/kapil.html even if I say so myself!) It takes slightly more disk space than a backport but is often simpler than the latter. Disclaimer: I run approx. Kapil. -- signature.asc Description: Digital signature
apt-proxy, apt-cacher approx
Hi, We've been using apt-proxy for about a year, and then found it quite buggy. So we moved to using apt-cacher. Now we have loads of problems with apt-cacher as well (like currently, a recurring tzdata size mismatch error). I was wondering if approx is any better than the other two. Did any of you try? Thomas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: apt-proxy, apt-cacher approx
On Sun, Sep 21, 2008 at 10:14 PM, Thomas Goirand [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: We've been using apt-proxy for about a year, and then found it quite buggy. So we moved to using apt-cacher. Now we have loads of problems with apt-cacher as well (like currently, a recurring tzdata size mismatch error). I was wondering if approx is any better than the other two. Did any of you try? I have also experienced similar problems with both apt-proxy and -cacher. I am now using approx, and I can report no errors with it at all. It may be slightly slower, but that could be my imagination. I would definitely recommend approx. Cameron -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
