Re: some proposed changes/requirements for apt
On Thu, 16 May 2002, Jason Gunthorpe 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.
it copes.. i could always do with more disk and ram but lets just say the
corporate sponsorship/support market is completely dead at the moment :-(
> 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.
i tried tux, thttpd and boa. out of those three, boa ended up being the
most successfull (i.e working).
> > 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?
because then i could put the rewrite rule back that shunted .gz downloads
out of the main webserver into boa.
at present, Packages.gz is fetched by apt which breaks on the 302 if
i do that. of course if you didn't compress anything, then that
would be ok, but it was a joke suggestion because i'd really prefer
if 302 support was implemented, even if was such that users could
turn it off if they wanted
regards,
-jason
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to deity-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: