Re: [Caml-list] Debian apt-proxy/apt-cacher replacement
On Fri, Apr 01, 2005 at 03:24:00PM -0500, Eric Cooper wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 01, 2005 at 09:39:19PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > Eric, i was about to upload the approx package, since i have been
> > using it since a couple weeks, but noticed that syslog-ocaml was not
> > in the archive, nor in the NEW queue. Do you know if it was already
> > uploaded, or not ? In the later case i would upload both of them.
>
> I didn't do anything other than check the package into svn, and
> haven't seen any emails about anyone else uploading it.
Ok, i will upload them.
> > Also, what is your preference for the maintainer/uploader fields ?
> > You as maintainer and me as uploader, or the debian/ocaml task force
> > as maintainer and me as uploader ? I am not sure you will directly
> > get bug reports in the second case, but they will go to the
> > debian-ocaml-maint mailing list, where you could get them.
>
> I am happy with either approach; if most packages use the task force
> as maintainer, it would be best to conform to that.
Ok.
> > Also, it mostly worked fine, but that little problem you mentioned
> > apparently caused debian|ubuntu-installer to barf when doing the
> > base-install, and since it has not-nice error recovery mode ... Hand
> > going in the chroot and doing an apt-get update did install the
> > problematic packages, but this is not enough for the installer. Any
> > idea of what this problem is.
>
> No, this has continued to elude me. The corruption is always zero or
> more lines of HTTP headers, followed by an empty (CRLF) line, before
> the correct data. And it's not reproducible just by removing the file
> from the cache and re-fetching it. It seems to go away when all the
> [flush] calls are removed from Stefano's ocaml-http (but that may just be
> masking the problem somehow).
Not cool, we will probably get bug reports about this one.
> > Also, i was wondering if a router could be setup in such a way to
> > transparently redirect a call to the archive to a call to approx,
> > but this seems complicated to me, since we don't really have apt-get
> > specific protocol or something to filter.
>
> I'm not sure what you want to do (or why), but perhaps the Apache
> configuration on the archive can be tweaked to allow this. Otherwise,
> some other HTTP-level entity, like another proxy or load balancer,
> would have to be involved.
Well, the idea was for an outgoing router/firewall/whatever, to automatically
intercept a apt-get http call, and transfer it to the proxy instead. I am not
sure this is possible though without a bigger logic than we have available in
most such routers, and in any case beyond the possibilities of my adsl
modem/router box. Would be nice though.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
Reply to: