On Mon, Nov 14, 2005 at 08:40:04AM +0100, Brian May wrote:
> Is a back port available for sarge? If not, how feasible would it be
> to create on? Does it depend on anything not in sarge?
Approx needs the current version of libocamlnet-ocaml-dev,
but otherwise should compile and work OK in sarge.
#include
* Eric Cooper [Mon, Nov 07 2005, 09:18:15AM]:
> > Is there a good alternative?
>
> I wrote approx for exactly this purpose. It's now in testing.
Update your package description please. Current apt-cacher does not
require Apache.
Eduard.
--
Elric: We are dreamers, shapers, singers, an
> "Eric" == Eric Cooper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Eric> I wrote approx for exactly this purpose. It's now in
Eric> testing.
Is a back port available for sarge? If not, how feasible would it be
to create on? Does it depend on anything not in sarge?
Thanks
--
Brian May <[EMAIL PROTE
> "O.S." == Otavio Salvador <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
O.S.> Unfortunatelly I hadn't time to work on it anymore and major
O.S.> of last work was did by Chris. Could you help with its
O.S.> development?
Thanks for the response.
Unfortunately, as I seem to be running behind with m
Brian May <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> However, I prefer the approach over apt-cacher, as the apt-sources
> entries remain independent of the server that will be used to retrieve
> the files.
I originally kept away from apt-cacher for exactly that reason, but it
now (as of version 1.0.6) support
On Mon, 2005-11-07 at 22:07 +0100, Adrian von Bidder wrote:
> On Monday 07 November 2005 15.53, Ian Campbell wrote:
> > On Mon, 2005-11-07 at 11:51 +1100, Brian May wrote:
> > > However, I prefer the approach over apt-cacher, as the apt-sources
> > > entries remain independent of the server that wi
On Monday 07 November 2005 15.53, Ian Campbell wrote:
> On Mon, 2005-11-07 at 11:51 +1100, Brian May wrote:
> > However, I prefer the approach over apt-cacher, as the apt-sources
> > entries remain independent of the server that will be used to retrieve
> > the files.
> >
> > Is there a good altern
On Mon, 2005-11-07 at 11:51 +1100, Brian May wrote:
> However, I prefer the approach over apt-cacher, as the apt-sources
> entries remain independent of the server that will be used to retrieve
> the files.
>
> Is there a good alternative?
I use apt-cacher and have mod_rewrite rewrite /debian/
t
On Mon, Nov 07, 2005 at 11:51:55AM +1100, Brian May wrote:
> Simple question: is apt-proxy still being maintained?
>
> Based on the growing list of bugs, I suspect not.
>
> A quick glance of some of the reports shows no sign of response from
> the maintainer.
>
> Some users in fact have complete
Brian May <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hello,
>
> Simple question: is apt-proxy still being maintained?
Yes, it's. Chris Halls is doing a big refactoring of it.
Current sid version has a lot fixes and more's comming.
Unfortunatelly I hadn't time to work on it anymore and major of last
work was
I demand that Brian May may or may not have written...
[snip]
>
> Without apt-proxy, I can't build packages with pbuilder, because it can't
> download the required files, which means I can't rebuild my package for
> sarge in order to see if it fixes a bug I encountered while testing another
> pie
> > > IIRC the problem is that rsync is quite CPU-heavy on the servers, so while
> > > the mirrors have the (network) resources to feed downloads to 100s of
> > > users, they don't have the (CPU) resources for a few dozen rsyncs.
> >
> > Why do you keep on saying this without providing _any_ figur
On Thursday 04 November 2004 17.46, Otto Wyss wrote:
> Why do you keep on saying this without providing _any_ figures!
Who is "you" here? Please pay attention to attribution on mailing list
postings - especially if you're starting a new thread with your mail. I
posted this statement about cpu
On Thu, Nov 04, 2004 at 06:35:40PM +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> > Now if you feel advantous, repack as many package on the source mirror
> > with gzip --rsyncable and notice the difference.
>
> Exactly how is this going to help? I can only see this as being
> useful when the files change. Files s
On Thu, Nov 04, 2004 at 06:35:40PM +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 04, 2004 at 05:46:55PM +0100, Otto Wyss wrote:
> >
> > Now if you feel advantous, repack as many package on the source mirror
> > with gzip --rsyncable and notice the difference.
>
> Exactly how is this going to help? I c
On Thu, Nov 04, 2004 at 05:46:55PM +0100, Otto Wyss wrote:
>
> Now if you feel advantous, repack as many package on the source mirror
> with gzip --rsyncable and notice the difference.
Exactly how is this going to help? I can only see this as being
useful when the files change. Files should nev
> > Can anyone explain why rsync is no longer considered an appropriate
> > method for fetching Packages files?
>
> IIRC the problem is that rsync is quite CPU-heavy on the servers, so while
> the mirrors have the (network) resources to feed downloads to 100s of
> users, they don't have the (CPU)
On Tue, Oct 26, 2004 at 12:20:19AM -0700, Ian Bruce said
> Now that gzip has the "--rsyncable" option, wouldn't it be feasible to
> rsync against compressed Packages files rather than having to keep the
> uncompressed ones around for this purpose?
You have to explicitly enable this option, which i
On Thu, Oct 28, 2004 at 01:54:54PM +0200, Adrian 'Dagurashibanipal' von Bidder
wrote:
> IIRC the problem is that rsync is quite CPU-heavy on the servers, so
> while the mirrors have the (network) resources to feed downloads to
> 100s of users, they don't have the (CPU) resources for a few dozen
On Oct 26, Ian Bruce <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Can anyone explain why rsync is no longer considered an appropriate
> method for fetching Packages files? It's the only mechanism I'm aware of
Because it's hard on servers, for a start.
--
ciao, |
Marco | [8782 diFcw3LT7Erlw]
signature.asc
Desc
On Tuesday 26 October 2004 09.20, Ian Bruce wrote:
> Can anyone explain why rsync is no longer considered an appropriate
> method for fetching Packages files?
IIRC the problem is that rsync is quite CPU-heavy on the servers, so while
the mirrors have the (network) resources to feed downloads to 1
On Sun, 21 Sep 2003 11:11:37 +1000
Brian May <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ok, this is driving me bananas. I go to download the latest
> unstable packages, only to find that apt-get update
> has just retrieved a cached copy of the Packages file that
> (in some cases) can be a month old.
I've seen s
22 matches
Mail list logo
