On Sat, 2004-10-23 at 12:57 -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > On Fri, 22 Oct 2004 23:04:32 -0700, Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > > > On Wed, Oct 20, 2004 at 02:11:44AM +0200, martin f krafft wrote: > >> Here's an idea I just had about apt-proxy/apt-cacher NG. Maybe this > >> could be interesting, maybe it's just crap. Your call. > > > My position on special-purpose proxy caches for APT is that > > general-purpose proxy caches (like squid) seem to work fine for me. > > What advantages do they have for others? > > Optimization? With a special purpose proxies I can control > how the cache gets updated. For example, I want to keep two versions > of packages I use around -- the current, and the previous one, no > matter how old. Hard to do with Squid, which does not know these two > files ar4e different versi9ons of the same package.
It can be taught that. A custom cache replacement policy, for one cache dir, for example. Rob -- GPG key available at: <http://www.robertcollins.net/keys.txt>.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
