Re: Best practices for development workstations
- To: email@example.com
- Subject: Re: Best practices for development workstations
- From: Toni Mueller <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Sat, 3 Apr 2010 17:48:08 +0200
- Message-id: <[🔎] email@example.com>
- In-reply-to: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- References: <4BB13FB4.email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <1269954437-sup-5625@zezinho> <email@example.com>
On Wed, 31.03.2010 at 08:46:01 +0100, Holger Levsen <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> On Dienstag, 30. März 2010, Marco Túlio Gontijo e Silva wrote:
> > > squid!
> > > (Or any other normal http proxy. I don't recommend any apt-proxy
> > > solution...)
> > Can you explain why?
> apt-proxy had issues when I tried (as well as others, which I cannot rememeber
me too. Apt-proxy has a very unpleasant tendency to simply hang every
now and then, and has almost been declared deprecated.
> approx iirc requires to changes /etc/apt/sources list, squid always
Yes. You need to point your sources.list to the apt-proxy instance.
> worked for me and never had issues, squid is useful for more then just
> proxying apt repositories, squid can be set up as a transparent proxy quite
> easily, updating a full/partial mirror usually takes more bandwidth then just
> using a proxy.
Actually, squid has its own slew of problems. Eg. I've yet to see a
machine where Squid runs reliably under anything resembling a
"reasonable load", instead of falling over frequently, and it can be
difficult to have the features work that you want in such a setting.
Eg. Lenny's version of Squid doesn't work for me on Lenny.
I'm currently test-driving apt-cacher-ng, which has it's own bag of
problems so far, but seems to be lighter and so far more reliable than