Re: apt, mirror redirection systems and error reporting.
On 22 April 2014 13:32, peter green <email@example.com> wrote:
> When this happens apt's current behaviour sucks. It reports the error with
> the original url it tried to retrieve and no indication that a redirect ever
> happened at all. This makes troubleshooting user complaints a PITA
> (difficult to tell the difference between "user forgot to run apt-get
> update" and "a mirror is broken" and difficult to determine which miror is
> broken in the latter case). It would be very useful to have better error
I've looked into that and AFAIR it was rather complex to push the
redirection information down the call stack to improve the error
> Mirrorbrain also lists a small selection of other mirrors (in addition to
> the mirror in the location: header) in the http response (don't remember the
> header name offhand but I can find out if anyone is interested). Apt could
> be extended to use such information to request files from alternative
> mirrors if the first one fails. Not sure how the developers would feel about
Yes, mirrorbrain added support for RFC6249 after http-redirector. My
plan was, and still is, to add support for it in apt - some fault
tolerance is needed in here.
As far as progress goes... I haven't got that far. My WIP is at:
With it you should be able to make apt rewrite URLs locally after it
has received a Link rel=duplicate with a depth > 0. Bigger changes are
needed to allow all that information to be used for failover.
Nowadays http-redirector doesn't send them since they are not used by
anyone, you can only see them through the demo. I can re-add a test
address where I had support for rfc6249 enabled, so that client
support can be tested.
Raphael Geissert - Debian Developer
www.debian.org - get.debian.net