On Mon, Nov 14, 2005 at 08:40:04AM +0100, Brian May wrote: > Is a back port available for sarge? If not, how feasible would it be > to create on? Does it depend on anything not in sarge?
Approx needs the current version of libocamlnet-ocaml-dev, but otherwise should compile and work OK in sarge. On Mon, Nov 14, 2005 at 08:40:04AM +0100, Eduard Bloch wrote: > Update your package description please. Current apt-cacher does not > require Apache. Yes, I noticed that when I saw the recent thread about apt-cacher's path_map option. It should be fixed in the next upload. As far as I can see, the primary difference is that approx supports FTP to remote repositories (which apt-cacher is likely to do too in the future), and is compiled to native code (which may not matter in practice). A secondary difference is that approx doesn't keep any meta information (HTTP headers) in the cache, just the downloaded files themselves. Apt-cacher has more flexibility in name mapping, and can integrate (or not) with an existing webserver. Is that a fair comparison? -- Eric Cooper e c c @ c m u . e d u -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]