On 10/24/2016 09:19 AM, Tollef Fog Heen wrote: > ]] Philipp Kern >> On 10/18/2016 06:47 PM, Marco d'Itri wrote: >>> On Oct 17, Ian Campbell <i...@debian.org> wrote: >>>> Have we gotten to the point where we consider deb.d.o suitable for >>>> production use? The web page still says Experimental (so I would assume >>> I do not think that it is appropriate for general use, since at least >>> one of the CDNs backing it lacks nodes in many (most) countries. >>> I like to get my Debian packages over peering links. :-) >> >> It's also a little awkward that apt does not tell you which of the SRV >> records it picked. (The "and why" is clear: round robin.) I had a short >> read earlier today and I had no idea how to even report it without that >> information. (Of course I know how to turn on debugging but then it >> picked a different one and succeeded.) > > Even getting the SRV record won't help much, you want to know what IP it > resolved to and what headers you got from the backend to uniquely > identify problems with a single POP or machine in a POP.
Fair enough. I never saw the current hash sum mismatch output before. I suppose it'd be helpful if apt could print more details about the machine it fetched it from in there -- if it still has the information, which is probably the more tricky part given pluggable transports. Kind regards Philipp Kern
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
