WWWOFFLE & Debian apt
Hi.
I noticed a problem with Debian's apt program and WWWOFFLE, when used
as an HTTP proxy. It's either a problem in WWWOFFLE or in apt or in
both. I need help in finding it. The weird thing is that it only
happens when you combine apt and WWWOFFLE -- each works very well on
its own.
Here's a quick description:
The relevant line from /etc/apt/sources.list:
deb http://sunsite.doc.ic.ac.uk/Mirrors/ftp.debian.org/pub/debian unstable contrib non-free
I have http_proxy=http://localhost:8080/ in my environment, which is
WWOFFLE. Now here's what happens:
alexsh:~# apt-get update
Get:1 http://sunsite.doc.ic.ac.uk unstable/contrib Packages [25.9kb]
Err http://sunsite.doc.ic.ac.uk unstable/contrib Packages
Error reading from server - read (104 Connection reset by peer)
It downloads the file, and in the end it gives this error. The file
size on the server is 25872 bytes. Now, what apt downloaded was this:
alexsh:~> ls -l /var/state/apt/lists/partial/
total 597
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 25132 Mar 26 17:28 sunsite.doc.ic.ac.uk_Mirrors_ftp.debian.org_pub_debian_dists_unstable_contrib_binary-i386_Packages
Downloading files via WWWOFFLE works very well with other clients
(such as wget and obviously netscape), and OTOH, when I DON'T use
WWWOFFLE as a proxy and download directly using apt, or use Squid as
the proxy (!), it also works flawlessly! I tried it a lot of times,
with different servers, on different days (so you can't say it's
network load or something), and the results are always the same.
That's why I say that I don't even know where to look, WWWOFFLE or
apt.
It looks like some minor screwup with buffering or something. Does
anyone have any ideas?
--
Alex Shnitman | http://www.debian.org
alexsh@hectic.net, alexsh@linux.org.il +-----------------------
http://alexsh.hectic.net UIN 188956 PGP key on web page
E1 F2 7B 6C A0 31 80 28 63 B8 02 BA 65 C7 8B BA
`When you say "I wrote a program that crashed Windows", people just stare at
you blankly and say "Hey, I got those with the system, *for free*".'
-- Linus Torvalds
Reply to: