[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Bug#59723: marked as done (apt: unreachable servers have to time out multiple times)

Your message dated Mon, 24 Mar 2025 21:06:46 +0100
with message-id <28261cc4-7c7a-4b83-b09d-5c0a04b67bbf@wp.pl>
and subject line Re: Bug#59723 apt: unreachable servers have to time out multiple times
has caused the Debian Bug report #59723,
regarding apt: unreachable servers have to time out multiple times
to be marked as done.

This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.

(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact owner@bugs.debian.org
immediately.)


-- 
59723: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=59723
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact owner@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message --- 
Package: apt
Version: 0.3.18
Severity: wishlist

My sources.list has entries for multiple ftp servers. This works fine if all
servers are reachable; in case that one of the servers is de-synced, apt-get
fetches the latest packages from different servers.

However, when some servers are unreachable, apt-get tries it over and over,
waiting for timeouts multiple times. I'd love to see apt-get cache
unreachable servers for some time (maybe an hour) and not to retry it with
this kind of persistence.

Greetings
Marc

-- System Information
Debian Release: 2.2
Kernel Version: Linux paola 2.2.14 #1 Sun Feb 27 15:41:04 CET 2000 i586 unknown

Versions of the packages apt depends on:
ii  libc6          2.1.3-5        GNU C Library: Shared libraries and Timezone
ii  libstdc++2.10  2.95.2-6       The GNU stdc++ library

--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message --- 
Closing per information from message #24
(https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=59723#24).

Kamil

--- End Message ---
Reply to: