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@example.com> 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
> Since you stated that apt-proxy is better, do you have some evidence or
> a reason for your statement, or is it just preference?
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
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact firstname.lastname@example.org