I've been using apt-proxy, and see apt-cacher mentioned some as well. (I'm using apt-proxy 1.3.6 from Testing, not 1.9.5 from Unstable.)
Apt-proxy looks like it's mainly a hack of some shell scripts to use wget, rsync and friends to retrieve packages and cache them. Apt-cacher looks like a .cgi hack that takes advantage of Apache for it's daemon capabilities. If both work as advertised, I would tend to think apt-cacher sounds better. But then I tried to find the documentation on apt-cacher - nothing except for two Debian files and a copyright in /usr/share/doc/apt-cacher. Man apt-cacher happens to have some good information and says to go to www.apt-cacher.org for more info; but this domain can not be found. Apt-cacher isn't looking so hot any more. Apt-proxy... well, I've been using it. It works good for caching, but it's noticeably slower, quite a bit so, than having my sources.list file point directly to a Debian mirror, and the first fetch usually has one or two package lists fail, but then works fine on the second try. So, anyone with experience using apt-cacher, or better yet, both apt-cacher and apt-proxy? I would appreciate hearing other people's thoughts and experiences. TIA, Jacob -- GnuPG Key: 1024D/16377135 Random .signature #54: If Bill Gates had a nickel for every time Windows crashed... Oh wait, he does.
pgpNEwTNqTBA9.pgp
Description: PGP signature
