Re: some proposed changes/requirements for apt
On Thu, 16 May 2002, jason andrade wrote:
> Tbyte, yes. /whack self for not remember TB vs Tb. Obviously not all of
> that is debian, but it's a significant percentage now.
Welp, that is a pretty big number then. Lots of ram and a fast disk array
I hope.
> > Nope. Only http get. One big warning though, if you are using a web server
> > other than apache it may be slightly buggy and people using it with APT
> > may get upset. In the past servers have had problems with HTTP/1.1
> > If-Range, pipelining and keepalive that APT makes heavy use of.
> hmm, i'll have to chat to the boa author about this.
Boa eh. Interesting choice. In the past it did have large numbers of
problems. I think most of them were solved - but I don't know if those
patches made it into the tree you are using.
> at the moment, my primary concern is still to figure out some way of
> dealing with lack of 302 support for .gz file fetches by apt. i don't
> suppose you feel like just deciding to not have any .gz files in
> the debian archive instead (i.e just leave Packages* everywhere
> uncompressed) :-)
Er? Why?
Jason
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to deity-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: