Re: are apt/sources.list http: and ftp: same?
On Tue, Jan 30, 2001 at 11:03:02AM -0600, Gregory Guthrie wrote:
> At 10:52 PM 01/29/2001 -0600, will trillich wrote:
> >On Sun, Jan 28, 2001 at 11:32:41AM -0600, Gregory Guthrie wrote:
> > > I found that with http: lines in my /etc/apt/sources.list I pointed to
> > > woody, but apt-get would not install known things there. I changed it to
> > > ftp: and it worked fine.
> > >
> > > Should these be the same? If different, is this documented?
> >
> >http://groups.yahoo.com/group/newbieDoc/files/apt-get-intro.html
> >
> >or,
> >
> >try "apt-setup" (if you don't have it, try apt-get install base-config)
> -- I don't see any discussion there of the difference (if any) between http
> and ftp sites in the sources.list specification.
from what i recall of an identical thread frmo a coupla months
ago, the main difference is that ftp has a bit of overhead when
starting up any particular transfer. where http is designed for
"here's that file you asked for", ftp is designed for a bit more
interactive nosing-around.
as for the server end of the arrangement, they may be the same
identical file, or they may be served from servers located in
different countries.
if you feel like testing them, feel free, and let us know how
your benchmarks come out.
--
See, if you were allowed to keep the money, you wouldn't
create jobs with it. You'd throw it in the bushes or
something. But the government will spend it, thereby
creating jobs. -- Dave Barry
will@serensoft.com *** http://www.dontUthink.com/
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/newbieDoc -- next week's
newbie needs your brain: document your experience today!
Reply to: