On Wed, Jun 08, 2005 at 04:57:06PM -0500, Jacob S wrote: > On Wed, 8 Jun 2005 17:37:33 -0400 > "Roberto C. Sanchez" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Wed, Jun 08, 2005 at 05:09:22PM -0400, Hendrik Boom wrote: > > > Now that I'll be upgrading my lan's server to sarge, I plan also > > > to install apt-cacher on it, so my other machines won't have to do > > > as much long-haul net traffic. > > > > > > Can I start the woody->sarge upgrade by updating, first, > > > aptitude and perl (that seems to be conventional wisdom) > > > then installing sarge's apt-cacher, and then pointing > > > the sources.list to apt-cacher running on the very machine > > > that is being upgraded to sarge? > > > > > > In the future, when further updates take place, will apt-cacher > > > know how to update itself while it's being used to download and > > > cache its replacement? > > > > Since you are serving machines on a network, you really want > > apt-proxy. > > Apt-cacher serves the same purpose as apt-proxy and works just as well, > in my experience. I switched to it before apt-proxy v2 hit Sarge and > found it to be better than apt-proxy v1 and it would start streaming the > file faster (helping to avoid timeouts that I had problems with in > apt-proxy). > > Since you stated that apt-proxy is better, do you have some evidence or > a reason for your statement, or is it just preference? > > HTH, > Jacob
I'd very much like to know this too. What are the relative merits of apt-proxy and apt-cacher. I hadn't realized there were two such programs. --hendrik > > > -- > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] > -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
