On Tue, 2004-03-02 at 01:13, Luigi Gangitano wrote: > Il sab, 2004-02-28 alle 21:10, Marc Haber ha scritto: > > The problem that I see is the following: From what I have understood > > and tested, squid will not even ask the server addressed in the URL > > for a later version if the object in the local cache is younger than > > the max-age value given by the client. > > > > This means the following: If a client does apt-get update via a squid > > at time x, and Debian issues a security update at time x+10m, all > > clients using this squid instance and apt 0.5 will not get that > > security update until x+86400s, which might be 86399 seconds too late. > > Unfortunately, this isn't even true. Please see bug #222499 on why squid > doesn't even consider max-age if the request type is 'HEAD'. And at > least apt-proxy does such requests. I must verify the kind of requests > done by apt. Fixed in 3.0 IIRC. And yes, we will release before the year 3000 ;). While I don't have time right now to do a patch for 2.5, you might add a bug to the squid bugzilla, so we don't forget about it. Rob -- GPG key available at: <http://www.robertcollins.net/keys.txt>.
Description: This is a digitally signed message part