Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Antonio Terceiro
* Package name: auto-apt-proxy
Version : 1
Upstream Author : Antonio Terceiro
* URL :
https://anonscm.debian.org/git/users/terceiro/auto-apt-proxy.git
* License : GPLv3
Programming Lang: Shell
ramming Lang: Python
Description : Caching peer-to-peer apt proxy for local networks
Apt-zeroconf is an extension to apt which enables it to find other
instances on the LAN in order to exchange debian package files and not to
fetch them from the internet.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMA
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.
#include
* Eric Cooper [Mon, Nov 07 2005, 09:18:15AM]:
> > Is there a good alternative?
>
> I wrote approx for exactly this purpose. It's now in testing.
Update your package description please. Current apt-cacher does not
require Apache.
Eduard.
--
Elric: We are dreamers, shapers, singers, an
> "Eric" == Eric Cooper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Eric> I wrote approx for exactly this purpose. It's now in
Eric> testing.
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?
Thanks
--
Brian May <[EMAIL PROTE
> "O.S." == Otavio Salvador <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
O.S.> Unfortunatelly I hadn't time to work on it anymore and major
O.S.> of last work was did by Chris. Could you help with its
O.S.> development?
Thanks for the response.
Unfortunately, as I seem to be running behind with m
Brian May <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> However, I prefer the approach over apt-cacher, as the apt-sources
> entries remain independent of the server that will be used to retrieve
> the files.
I originally kept away from apt-cacher for exactly that reason, but it
now (as of version 1.0.6) support
On Mon, 2005-11-07 at 22:07 +0100, Adrian von Bidder wrote:
> On Monday 07 November 2005 15.53, Ian Campbell wrote:
> > On Mon, 2005-11-07 at 11:51 +1100, Brian May wrote:
> > > However, I prefer the approach over apt-cacher, as the apt-sources
> > > entries remain independent of the server that wi
On Monday 07 November 2005 15.53, Ian Campbell wrote:
> On Mon, 2005-11-07 at 11:51 +1100, Brian May wrote:
> > However, I prefer the approach over apt-cacher, as the apt-sources
> > entries remain independent of the server that will be used to retrieve
> > the files.
> >
> > Is there a good altern
On Mon, 2005-11-07 at 11:51 +1100, Brian May wrote:
> However, I prefer the approach over apt-cacher, as the apt-sources
> entries remain independent of the server that will be used to retrieve
> the files.
>
> Is there a good alternative?
I use apt-cacher and have mod_rewrite rewrite /debian/
t
On Mon, Nov 07, 2005 at 11:51:55AM +1100, Brian May wrote:
> Simple question: is apt-proxy still being maintained?
>
> Based on the growing list of bugs, I suspect not.
>
> A quick glance of some of the reports shows no sign of response from
> the maintainer.
>
>
Brian May <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hello,
>
> Simple question: is apt-proxy still being maintained?
Yes, it's. Chris Halls is doing a big refactoring of it.
Current sid version has a lot fixes and more's comming.
Unfortunatelly I hadn't time to work on it
I demand that Brian May may or may not have written...
[snip]
>
> Without apt-proxy, I can't build packages with pbuilder, because it can't
> download the required files, which means I can't rebuild my package for
> sarge in order to see if it fixes a bug I encoun
Hello,
Simple question: is apt-proxy still being maintained?
Based on the growing list of bugs, I suspect not.
A quick glance of some of the reports shows no sign of response from
the maintainer.
Some users in fact have completely given up.
A recent bug I have discovered makes it unusable
sorry to followup my own post, but...
I did a few apt-proxy-import tests by removing a random set of .debs
out of the cache tree and importing again. This worked correctly.
Cheers
Vince
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Cont
> > > IIRC the problem is that rsync is quite CPU-heavy on the servers, so while
> > > the mirrors have the (network) resources to feed downloads to 100s of
> > > users, they don't have the (CPU) resources for a few dozen rsyncs.
> >
> > Why do you keep on saying this without providing _any_ figur
On Thursday 04 November 2004 17.46, Otto Wyss wrote:
> Why do you keep on saying this without providing _any_ figures!
Who is "you" here? Please pay attention to attribution on mailing list
postings - especially if you're starting a new thread with your mail. I
posted this statement about cpu
On Thu, Nov 04, 2004 at 06:35:40PM +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> > Now if you feel advantous, repack as many package on the source mirror
> > with gzip --rsyncable and notice the difference.
>
> Exactly how is this going to help? I can only see this as being
> useful when the files change. Files s
On Thu, Nov 04, 2004 at 06:35:40PM +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 04, 2004 at 05:46:55PM +0100, Otto Wyss wrote:
> >
> > Now if you feel advantous, repack as many package on the source mirror
> > with gzip --rsyncable and notice the difference.
>
> Exactly how is this going to help? I c
On Thu, Nov 04, 2004 at 05:46:55PM +0100, Otto Wyss wrote:
>
> Now if you feel advantous, repack as many package on the source mirror
> with gzip --rsyncable and notice the difference.
Exactly how is this going to help? I can only see this as being
useful when the files change. Files should nev
> > Can anyone explain why rsync is no longer considered an appropriate
> > method for fetching Packages files?
>
> IIRC the problem is that rsync is quite CPU-heavy on the servers, so while
> the mirrors have the (network) resources to feed downloads to 100s of
> users, they don't have the (CPU)
On Tue, Oct 26, 2004 at 12:20:19AM -0700, Ian Bruce said
> Now that gzip has the "--rsyncable" option, wouldn't it be feasible to
> rsync against compressed Packages files rather than having to keep the
> uncompressed ones around for this purpose?
You have to explicitly enable this option, which i
On Thu, Oct 28, 2004 at 01:54:54PM +0200, Adrian 'Dagurashibanipal' von Bidder
wrote:
> IIRC the problem is that rsync is quite CPU-heavy on the servers, so
> while the mirrors have the (network) resources to feed downloads to
> 100s of users, they don't have the (CPU) resources for a few dozen
On Oct 26, Ian Bruce <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Can anyone explain why rsync is no longer considered an appropriate
> method for fetching Packages files? It's the only mechanism I'm aware of
Because it's hard on servers, for a start.
--
ciao, |
Marco | [8782 diFcw3LT7Erlw]
signature.asc
Desc
On Tuesday 26 October 2004 09.20, Ian Bruce wrote:
> Can anyone explain why rsync is no longer considered an appropriate
> method for fetching Packages files?
IIRC the problem is that rsync is quite CPU-heavy on the servers, so while
the mirrors have the (network) resources to feed downloads to 1
message:
Date: Thu, 7 Oct 2004 07:10:28 -0700
From: Ian Bruce <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: apt-proxy v2 and rsync
I was distressed to read the following in the documentation for the new
apt-proxy:
- rsync is not officially supp
On Sun, 21 Sep 2003 11:11:37 +1000
Brian May <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ok, this is driving me bananas. I go to download the latest
> unstable packages, only to find that apt-get update
> has just retrieved a cached copy of the Packages file that
> (in some cases) can be a month old.
I've seen s
27 matches
Mail list logo
