On Wed, 2009 Aug 19 22:50+0100, Mark Hindley wrote:
> >
> > 5. If no, complain that the package can't be imported.
> >
> > Does this sound reasonable? #5 would be a new behavior for the
> > import script, but these would be files that apt-cacher-cleanup.pl
> > would blow away anyway.
>
> I think i
On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 01:57:46PM -0400, Daniel Richard G. wrote:
> Okay, here is a revised patch implementing the feature. This time,
> apt-cacher-cleanup.pl and the checksum database are onboard. I also
> tweaked the long-filename convention to use "::" right before the actual
> package name, to
Okay, here is a revised patch implementing the feature. This time,
apt-cacher-cleanup.pl and the checksum database are onboard. I also
tweaked the long-filename convention to use "::" right before the actual
package name, to make the names easier to parse in Perl. (Colons can
also appear in the fil
On Mon, 2009 Aug 17 23:31+0100, Mark Hindley wrote:
>
> It isn't that there would be multiple databases, just that the size
> would/could increase dramatically.
>
> Currently each .deb has it's checksums in the database. About 30MB for
> the Debian distro. No hosts or paths are stored. Filenames ar
On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 06:20:20PM -0400, Daniel Richard G. wrote:
> On Mon, 2009 Aug 17 21:35+0100, Mark Hindley wrote:
> >
> > Actually, there is one more bit that concerns me. That is the checksum
> > code. Do you use checksumming?
>
> I don't use checksumming, but aren't the checksum databases
On Mon, 2009 Aug 17 21:35+0100, Mark Hindley wrote:
>
> Actually, there is one more bit that concerns me. That is the checksum
> code. Do you use checksumming?
I don't use checksumming, but aren't the checksum databases built off
the index files, not the packages?
> At the moment there is a set o
On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 08:58:04PM +0100, Mark Hindley wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 03:37:35PM -0400, Daniel Richard G. wrote:
> > As far as I'm aware, there isn't a good way to know. So the caveat is
> > that if a cache has short-filename packages, then it can't handle
> > multiple distributio
On Mon, 2009 Aug 17 20:58+0100, Mark Hindley wrote:
>
> I am concerned that there might be some users on low end systems with
> poor bandwidth and/or disk space who might consider the traditional
> lack of redundant downloads as a real feature. So, since a multi-
> distro cache can't use short-file
On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 03:37:35PM -0400, Daniel Richard G. wrote:
> As far as I'm aware, there isn't a good way to know. So the caveat is
> that if a cache has short-filename packages, then it can't handle
> multiple distributions, unless the packages somehow have the same
> checksums across the b
On Mon, 2009 Aug 17 20:00+0100, Mark Hindley wrote:
>
> Consider the cached file
> /var/cache/apt-cacher/packages/zip_2.32-1_amd64.deb which is present
> in an existing cache and also present in both Debian and Ubuntu
> distros (different files, but same name). There is no 'long filename'
> file,
On Mon, 2009 Aug 17 19:44+0100, Mark Hindley wrote:
>
> I meant, if you weren't using the path_map at all. Currently, if one
> apt client requests
>
> ftp.uk.debian.org/debian/pool/main/z/zip/zip_2.32-1_amd64.deb
>
> and one
>
> ftp.us.debian.org/debian/pool/main/z/zip/zip_2.32-1_amd64.deb
>
> th
On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 01:48:18PM -0400, Daniel Richard G. wrote:
> On Mon, 2009 Aug 17 09:11+0100, Mark Hindley wrote:
> >
> > Lying awake considering this more overnight, I realised this would
> > also break checksumming which only uses the filename without a path.
>
> Well, for one, you wouldn
On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 01:13:46PM -0400, Daniel Richard G. wrote:
> On Sun, 2009 Aug 16 21:01+0100, Mark Hindley wrote:
> >
> > Thanks for this. Interesting. When I originally went through sorting
> > out the 2 server workaround for this, I considered (and rejected :))
> > this approach.
> >
> > T
On Mon, 2009 Aug 17 09:11+0100, Mark Hindley wrote:
>
> Lying awake considering this more overnight, I realised this would
> also break checksumming which only uses the filename without a path.
Well, for one, you wouldn't lop off the directory parts of the filename
in apt-cacher-lib.pl:268 :-)
Th
On Sun, 2009 Aug 16 21:01+0100, Mark Hindley wrote:
>
> Thanks for this. Interesting. When I originally went through sorting
> out the 2 server workaround for this, I considered (and rejected :))
> this approach.
>
> The problem with it is that apt-cacher was designed to ignore the
> server path so
On Sun, Aug 16, 2009 at 09:01:39PM +0100, Mark Hindley wrote:
> Thanks for this. Interesting. When I originally went through sorting out
> the 2 server workaround for this, I considered (and rejected :)) this
> approach.
>
> The problem with it is that apt-cacher was designed to ignore the server
On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 06:53:41PM -0400, Daniel Richard G. wrote:
> Package: apt-cacher
> Version: 1.6.8
> Severity: wishlist
> Tags: patch
>
> Currently, a single instance of apt-cacher cannot serve both Debian and
> Ubuntu systems, even though it could serve either one alone. The reason
> for t
Package: apt-cacher
Version: 1.6.8
Severity: wishlist
Tags: patch
Currently, a single instance of apt-cacher cannot serve both Debian and
Ubuntu systems, even though it could serve either one alone. The reason
for this is that there are numerous package files that have the exact
same filename in b
18 matches
Mail list logo
