I'm OK with closing it too. Yes, ACNG is much easier for most purposes
than squid.
--
Main Inclusion Report for apt-cacher
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/191378
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
--
ubuntu-bugs mailing li
I'd agree with closing this, apt-cacher-ng still is easier to configure
than squid IMO.
--
Main Inclusion Report for apt-cacher
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/191378
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
--
ubuntu-bugs mailin
This MIR is stale and has not been updated in several months, thus I
close it for now. If you are still interested in it and want to maintain
this package, please reopen.
However, there does not seem to be clear consensus between apt-cacher
and apt-cacher-ng, squid can replace most of the use case
I don't think acng is config-file compatible with apt-cacher. acng has
several interesting features (like backend redundancy) that apt-cacher
doesn't. Since I first posted on this bug, there have been at least one
upstream release of each.
I've been using squid and apt-cacher and I have to say t
I have several reports indicating apt-cacher-ng is compatible with apt-
cacher config files and is faster/leaner than apt-cacher.
I favor using apt-cacher* instead of squid as squid is a general purpose
proxy tool as opposed to apt-cacher which is specifically designed and
optimized for packages.
Soren: As you use apt-cacher together with vm-builder, could you please
share your thoughts on this subject?
--
Main Inclusion Report for apt-cacher
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/191378
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
-
apt-cacher and apt-cacher-ng are both pretty aggressively maintained.
The version of apt-cacher that will be in jaunty has sprouted several
new dependencies, though, as well as new features.
I have some experience with squid, too.
+1 from me on having Ubuntu recommend a specific apt-caching solu
I personally use squid as well; this works in most tools by simply
exporting http_proxy, covers more use cases, and doesn't require any
specific APT config (e.g. my build environments transparently benefit
from it).
--
Main Inclusion Report for apt-cacher
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/191378
Yo
In my opinion, apt-cacher-ng (written in C) seems to be a better option.
It uses less resources and is faster than apt-cacher.
--
Main Inclusion Report for apt-cacher
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/191378
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is the b
apparently there are mixed feelings.
- it looks like debian maintainance got faster (new upstream release in Jan
2008)
- there are other alternatives, like apt-proxy. why prefer apt-cacher?
- Nick Barcet came up with the idea to provide a configuration for squid
instead
(which already is i
10 matches
Mail list logo
