apt-proxy-users — Users of apt-proxy

Re: [Apt-proxy-users] FetcherFile instance has no attribute 'size'

[Jon T. <red...@ea...>]

On Tuesday 25 January 2005 07:00 am, Chris Halls wrote:
> On Tuesday 25 Jan 2005 08:23, Olivier Bornet wrote:
> > Is it correct to put all the directories/files under
> > /var/cache/apt-proxy owned by aptproxy ?
> > (on my setup, it's /var/cache/apt-proxy, not /var/lib/apt-proxy).
>
> Yes that's correct
> Chris

It is /var/cache/apt-proxy on mine as well. That's what happens when you=20
compose from memory. ;)

=2D-=20
This email sent with peace, love and Linux.
=2D----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GB d s: a C++ UL++++ P++ L++++ E- W++ N+ o-- K w--=20
O M+ V PS+ PE++ Y+ PGP++ t+ 5 X++ R* tv+ b++ DI++ D---=20
G e h--- r++ y++=20
=2D-----END GEEK CODE BLOCK------

Re: [Apt-proxy-users] endless recycling

[Chris H. <ha...@de...>]

On Tuesday 25 Jan 2005 11:48, Micha wrote:
> > I run apt-poxy on both my laptop and a server.  I recently moved the
> > cache from the laptop to the server by simply tarring up
> > /var/cache/apt-proxy, transfering it, and then untaring it.  This was a
> > 1.1 gig tranfer.

You should be using the utility written for this purpose, apt-proxy-import.  
If you can arrange to mount the server cache via some means e.g. nfs, you can 
also save network traffic by getting apt-proxy-import to read the server tree 
itself.  That way, it will only copy files that it does not already have in 
its own cache.

> > The problem I'm having is that when apt-proxy starts on the server it
> > spends hours and hours recycling, and whenever apt-proxy restarts, the
> > entire process starts all over again.  

This will be caused by the problems with your database files.

> > Furthermore, I believe that this 
> > recycling is the cause of the "503 Service Unavailable" I receive when I
> > try and access the cache through apt.

That's odd, I don't know what that problem is

> > I used to be able to simply untar .debs into the cache with no problems
> > back when apt-cache was a bash script.  I have two questions.  First,
> > what's causing this?  It looks like a permissions problem, but the
> > permissions look fine.  

I'm not sure. There were some problems with this bit of code and it has been 
recently changed.  Which version of apt-proxy are you running?

> > My second question is why is a this database 
> > needed when it wasn't before

The bash version used to use the filesystem last access time (atime) of the 
file.  This was not very reliable and could be confused by e.g. making copies 
of the cached files (as you are doing on your server), or by using a 
filesystem mounted with noatime.  The database stores these last access times 
in a file under ap's control instead.  If a file is placed in the cache 
without a database entry, you get this 'recycling file' message as apt-proxy 
adds it to its database.

> > , and why does it take 2-3 seconds to recycle 
> > each file?

Because the recycler runs very slowly, sleeping between each cache access.  
Again, using apt-proxy-import is the way to go when mass importing files.

> > 2005/01/15 15:02 CST [-] Starting factory <apt_proxy.apt_proxy.Factory
> > instance at 0x40535b2c> 2005/01/15 15:02 CST [-] set uid/gid 103/65534
> > 2005/01/15 15:02 CST [-] [debug] Verifying database:
> > /var/cache/apt-proxy/.apt-proxy/db/access.db 2005/01/15 15:02 CST [-]
> > [db] /var/cache/apt-proxy/.apt-proxy/db/access.db could not be opened,
> > moved to /var/cache/apt-proxy/.apt-proxy/db/access.db.error 2005/01/15

That indicates the database library could not open the databse, very strange.  
Is it possible you copied that database from the server, and the server has 
different apt-proxy/db library versions?

> > bubbles:/var/cache/apt-proxy/.apt-proxy/db# ls -la
> > total 1764
> > drwx------    2 aptproxy nogroup      4096 Jan 15 15:02 ./
> > drwxr-xr-x    4 aptproxy nogroup      4096 Jul 29 12:10 ../
> > -rw-------    1 aptproxy nogroup    638976 Jan 15 16:35 access.db
> > -rw-------    1 aptproxy nogroup   1318912 Jan 15 04:45 access.db.error
> > -rw-------    1 aptproxy nogroup     12288 Dec  7 21:52
> > access.db.previous -rw-------    1 aptproxy nogroup     45056 Jan 15
> > 04:45 packages.db -rw-------    1 aptproxy nogroup    176128 Dec  7 21:56
> > packages.db.previous -rw-------    1 aptproxy nogroup     12288 Jan 14
> > 10:47 update.db -rw-------    1 aptproxy nogroup     12288 Oct 21 11:29
> > update.db.error -rw-------    1 aptproxy nogroup     12288 Dec  7 21:56
> > update.db.previous

Can you run 'file *' in that directory please?

Chris

Re: [Apt-proxy-users] FetcherFile instance has no attribute 'size'

[Chris H. <ha...@de...>]

On Tuesday 25 Jan 2005 08:23, Olivier Bornet wrote:
> Is it correct to put all the directories/files under
> /var/cache/apt-proxy owned by aptproxy ?
> (on my setup, it's /var/cache/apt-proxy, not /var/lib/apt-proxy).

Yes that's correct
Chris

Re: [Apt-proxy-users] endless recycling

[Micha <ear...@gm...>]

I would be interested if you found out the reason for this problem.

greetings, micha.


Jonathan Koren <jk...@cs...>:
> I'm running 1.9.24 on debian.
> 
> I run apt-poxy on both my laptop and a server.  I recently moved the cache 
> from the laptop to the server by simply tarring up /var/cache/apt-proxy, 
> transfering it, and then untaring it.  This was a 1.1 gig tranfer.
> 
> The problem I'm having is that when apt-proxy starts on the server it 
> spends hours and hours recycling, and whenever apt-proxy restarts, the 
> entire process starts all over again.  Furthermore, I believe that this 
> recycling is the cause of the "503 Service Unavailable" I receive when I 
> try and access the cache through apt.
> 
> I used to be able to simply untar .debs into the cache with no problems 
> back when apt-cache was a bash script.  I have two questions.  First, 
> what's causing this?  It looks like a permissions problem, but the 
> permissions look fine.  My second question is why is a this database 
> needed when it wasn't before, and why does it take 2-3 seconds to recycle 
> each file?
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> Here's the part of log:
> 
> 2005/01/15 15:02 CST [-] Starting factory <apt_proxy.apt_proxy.Factory instance at 0x40535b2c>
> 2005/01/15 15:02 CST [-] set uid/gid 103/65534
> 2005/01/15 15:02 CST [-] [debug] Verifying database: /var/cache/apt-proxy/.apt-proxy/db/access.db
> 2005/01/15 15:02 CST [-] [db] /var/cache/apt-proxy/.apt-proxy/db/access.db could not be opened, moved to /var/cache/apt-proxy/.apt-proxy/db/access.db.error
> 2005/01/15 15:02 CST [-] [db] Recreating /var/cache/apt-proxy/.apt-proxy/db/access.db
> 2005/01/15 15:02 CST [-] [debug] Opening database /var/cache/apt-proxy/.apt-proxy/db/access.db
> 2005/01/15 15:02 CST [-] [recycle] Adopting new file: /debian/.apt-proxy
> 2005/01/15 15:02 CST [-] [recycle] Adopting new file: /debian/pool/non-US/non-free/r/rsaref2/rsaref2_19940415-3_i386.deb
> 2005/01/15 15:02 CST [-] [recycle] Adopting new file: /debian/pool/non-US/non-free/s/speak-freely/speak-freely_7.2-1_i386.deb
> 
> and the relevant file permissions:
> 
> bubbles:/var/cache/apt-proxy/.apt-proxy/db# ls -la
> total 1764
> drwx------    2 aptproxy nogroup      4096 Jan 15 15:02 ./
> drwxr-xr-x    4 aptproxy nogroup      4096 Jul 29 12:10 ../
> -rw-------    1 aptproxy nogroup    638976 Jan 15 16:35 access.db
> -rw-------    1 aptproxy nogroup   1318912 Jan 15 04:45 access.db.error
> -rw-------    1 aptproxy nogroup     12288 Dec  7 21:52 access.db.previous
> -rw-------    1 aptproxy nogroup     45056 Jan 15 04:45 packages.db
> -rw-------    1 aptproxy nogroup    176128 Dec  7 21:56 packages.db.previous
> -rw-------    1 aptproxy nogroup     12288 Jan 14 10:47 update.db
> -rw-------    1 aptproxy nogroup     12288 Oct 21 11:29 update.db.error
> -rw-------    1 aptproxy nogroup     12288 Dec  7 21:56 update.db.previous

Re: [Apt-proxy-users] FetcherFile instance has no attribute 'size'

[Olivier B. <Oli...@pu...>]

Hi Chris,

> Ouch, I wonder how that happened.  Otavio recently fixed one problem with
>  file ownerships.  Could you please let me know by filing a bug report if=
 you
>  see this in the next version after it is released?  The fixes are in CVS
>  currently.

OK. I will wait on the new version on the Debian repository, and fill a
debian bug report if the problem is always here.

Good day, and thanks for your answer.

        Olivier
--=20
Olivier Bornet                |    fran=E7ais : http://puck.ch/f
Swiss Ice Hockey Results      |    english  : http://puck.ch/e
http://puck.ch/               |    deutsch  : http://puck.ch/g
Oli...@pu...        |    italiano : http://puck.ch/i
Get my PGP-key at http://puck.ch/pgp or at http://pgp.mit.edu/

Re: [Apt-proxy-users] FetcherFile instance has no attribute 'size'

[Olivier B. <Oli...@pu...>]

Hi Jon,

On Mon, Jan 24, 2005 at 09:05:16AM -0500, Jon Tyler wrote:
> On Monday 24 January 2005 08:24 am, Olivier Bornet wrote:
> >   ...
> >     File "/usr/lib/python2.3/site-packages/apt_proxy/apt_proxy.py", line
> > 1112, in insert_request log.debug("Serving from cache for additional
> > client: " + self.local_file + " size:" + str(self.size))
> > exceptions.AttributeError: FetcherFile instance has no attribute 'size'
> >
>=20
> Recently, I saw these when I added a new backend to apt-proxy. As I figur=
ed=20
> out, the problem is ownership of the cached files.
>=20
> Apt-proxy was creating the backend directory (/var/lib/apt-proxy/{backend=
})=20
> with owner root.root instead of aptproxy.nobody. Once I changed ownership=
 of=20
> the directory and restarted apt-proxy, everything was fine.

It's maybe related. I also have see strange ownership for some
directories.

Is it correct to put all the directories/files under
/var/cache/apt-proxy owned by aptproxy ?
(on my setup, it's /var/cache/apt-proxy, not /var/lib/apt-proxy).

Good day.

        Olivier
--=20
Olivier Bornet                |    fran=E7ais : http://puck.ch/f
Swiss Ice Hockey Results      |    english  : http://puck.ch/e
http://puck.ch/               |    deutsch  : http://puck.ch/g
Oli...@pu...        |    italiano : http://puck.ch/i
Get my PGP-key at http://puck.ch/pgp or at http://pgp.mit.edu/

Re: [Apt-proxy-users] FetcherFile instance has no attribute 'size'

[Chris H. <ha...@de...>]

On Monday 24 Jan 2005 14:05, Jon Tyler wrote:
> On Monday 24 January 2005 08:24 am, Olivier Bornet wrote:
> >   ...
> >     File "/usr/lib/python2.3/site-packages/apt_proxy/apt_proxy.py", line
> > 1112, in insert_request log.debug("Serving from cache for additional
> > client: " + self.local_file + " size:" + str(self.size))
> > exceptions.AttributeError: FetcherFile instance has no attribute 'size'
>
> Recently, I saw these when I added a new backend to apt-proxy. As I figured
> out, the problem is ownership of the cached files.
>
> Apt-proxy was creating the backend directory (/var/lib/apt-proxy/{backend})
> with owner root.root instead of aptproxy.nobody. Once I changed ownership
> of the directory and restarted apt-proxy, everything was fine.

Ouch, I wonder how that happened.  Otavio recently fixed one problem with
 file ownerships.  Could you please let me know by filing a bug report if you
 see this in the next version after it is released?  The fixes are in CVS
 currently.

Thanks
Chris

Re: [Apt-proxy-users] FetcherFile instance has no attribute 'size'

[Jon T. <red...@ea...>]

On Monday 24 January 2005 08:24 am, Olivier Bornet wrote:
>   ...
>     File "/usr/lib/python2.3/site-packages/apt_proxy/apt_proxy.py", line
> 1112, in insert_request log.debug("Serving from cache for additional
> client: " + self.local_file + " size:" + str(self.size))
> exceptions.AttributeError: FetcherFile instance has no attribute 'size'
>

Recently, I saw these when I added a new backend to apt-proxy. As I figured=
=20
out, the problem is ownership of the cached files.

Apt-proxy was creating the backend directory (/var/lib/apt-proxy/{backend})=
=20
with owner root.root instead of aptproxy.nobody. Once I changed ownership o=
f=20
the directory and restarted apt-proxy, everything was fine.

=2D-=20
This email sent with peace, love and Linux.
=2D----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GB d s: a C++ UL++++ P++ L++++ E- W++ N+ o-- K w--=20
O M+ V PS+ PE++ Y+ PGP++ t+ 5 X++ R* tv+ b++ DI++ D---=20
G e h--- r++ y++=20
=2D-----END GEEK CODE BLOCK------

[Apt-proxy-users] FetcherFile instance has no attribute 'size'

[Olivier B. <Oli...@pu...>]

Hello,

we are using apt-proxy on a site with about 40 GNU/Debian systems, and
we are happy with it. So, thanks for it.

apt-proxy is package 1.9.24 from main GNU/Debian repository.

We have sometime errors in the logs like:

  ...
    File "/usr/lib/python2.3/site-packages/apt_proxy/apt_proxy.py", line 11=
12, in insert_request
      log.debug("Serving from cache for additional client: " + self.local_f=
ile + " size:" + str(self.size))
  exceptions.AttributeError: FetcherFile instance has no attribute 'size'

I have try to change:

        log.debug("Serving from cache for additional client: " + self.local=
_file + " size:" + str(self.size))

with:

        try:
            log.debug("Serving from cache for additional client: " + self.l=
ocal_file + " size:" + str(self.size))
        except AttributeError:
            log.debug("Serving from cache for additional client: " + self.l=
ocal_file + " size: zero!")

His this a correct fix ? And if not, any other suggestions ?

Thanks in advance.

        Olivier
--=20
Olivier Bornet                |    fran=E7ais : http://puck.ch/f
Swiss Ice Hockey Results      |    english  : http://puck.ch/e
http://puck.ch/               |    deutsch  : http://puck.ch/g
Oli...@pu...        |    italiano : http://puck.ch/i
Get my PGP-key at http://puck.ch/pgp or at http://pgp.mit.edu/

[Apt-proxy-users] Re: OT: Patenting software in europe -- decision on Jan 21

[Michael <mic...@gm...>]

Correction: The council meeting is Jan 24 (Monday) not 21.

Please see http://wiki.ffii.org/Fish0501En for more detailed information.

[Apt-proxy-users] OT: Patenting software in europe -- decision on Jan 21

[Micha <ear...@gm...>]

Hello,

I dare to bother you and expect your flames with this OT since i personally=
 believe it's important enough for the future of any free software project.

The EU directive on the patentability of software takes another turn.
After a Council decision was impeded by the polish IT minister in december,=
 they intend to set it on the Fishery- and Agriculture meeting again, this =
time at 2004-01-21, as an A-Item which would mean adopting without any disc=
ussion. It's our opinion that for several reasons it must be decided as an =
B-Item instead, which would mean several important national parlament movem=
ents get a chance to be heared, and the whole thing will possibly be trashe=
d, or rewritten. In the recent version the preparating committees threw awa=
y any valuable amendments made by the Europarl last year, totally.
In case it gets through, the Europarlament will have a very difficult stand=
 at next stage to modify it once again.=20

Perhaps you have the opportunity to join the web-demo with a banner on your=
 homepage, or writing some mail to mulitpliers.=20

For more accurate information see: http://www.ffii.org
A collection of banners can be (hopefully) found starting at: http://demo.f=
fii.org.
The latest news use to appear on: http://kwiki.ffii.org/SwpatcninoEn

I should add this mail is merely my private action, not an official FFII mi=
ssion, although we  recommend to do so even if it sucks. We heavily depend =
on the participation of developers, users, and any internet community.


Greetings, mi.



  =B0
 /\/

[Apt-proxy-users] endless recycling

[Jonathan K. <jk...@cs...>]

I'm running 1.9.24 on debian.

I run apt-poxy on both my laptop and a server.  I recently moved the cache 
from the laptop to the server by simply tarring up /var/cache/apt-proxy, 
transfering it, and then untaring it.  This was a 1.1 gig tranfer.

The problem I'm having is that when apt-proxy starts on the server it 
spends hours and hours recycling, and whenever apt-proxy restarts, the 
entire process starts all over again.  Furthermore, I believe that this 
recycling is the cause of the "503 Service Unavailable" I receive when I 
try and access the cache through apt.

I used to be able to simply untar .debs into the cache with no problems 
back when apt-cache was a bash script.  I have two questions.  First, 
what's causing this?  It looks like a permissions problem, but the 
permissions look fine.  My second question is why is a this database 
needed when it wasn't before, and why does it take 2-3 seconds to recycle 
each file?

Thanks.

Here's the part of log:

2005/01/15 15:02 CST [-] Starting factory <apt_proxy.apt_proxy.Factory instance at 0x40535b2c>
2005/01/15 15:02 CST [-] set uid/gid 103/65534
2005/01/15 15:02 CST [-] [debug] Verifying database: /var/cache/apt-proxy/.apt-proxy/db/access.db
2005/01/15 15:02 CST [-] [db] /var/cache/apt-proxy/.apt-proxy/db/access.db could not be opened, moved to /var/cache/apt-proxy/.apt-proxy/db/access.db.error
2005/01/15 15:02 CST [-] [db] Recreating /var/cache/apt-proxy/.apt-proxy/db/access.db
2005/01/15 15:02 CST [-] [debug] Opening database /var/cache/apt-proxy/.apt-proxy/db/access.db
2005/01/15 15:02 CST [-] [recycle] Adopting new file: /debian/.apt-proxy
2005/01/15 15:02 CST [-] [recycle] Adopting new file: /debian/pool/non-US/non-free/r/rsaref2/rsaref2_19940415-3_i386.deb
2005/01/15 15:02 CST [-] [recycle] Adopting new file: /debian/pool/non-US/non-free/s/speak-freely/speak-freely_7.2-1_i386.deb

and the relevant file permissions:

bubbles:/var/cache/apt-proxy/.apt-proxy/db# ls -la
total 1764
drwx------    2 aptproxy nogroup      4096 Jan 15 15:02 ./
drwxr-xr-x    4 aptproxy nogroup      4096 Jul 29 12:10 ../
-rw-------    1 aptproxy nogroup    638976 Jan 15 16:35 access.db
-rw-------    1 aptproxy nogroup   1318912 Jan 15 04:45 access.db.error
-rw-------    1 aptproxy nogroup     12288 Dec  7 21:52 access.db.previous
-rw-------    1 aptproxy nogroup     45056 Jan 15 04:45 packages.db
-rw-------    1 aptproxy nogroup    176128 Dec  7 21:56 packages.db.previous
-rw-------    1 aptproxy nogroup     12288 Jan 14 10:47 update.db
-rw-------    1 aptproxy nogroup     12288 Oct 21 11:29 update.db.error
-rw-------    1 aptproxy nogroup     12288 Dec  7 21:56 update.db.previous


--
Jonathan Koren			World domination?  I'll leave that to the 
jk...@cs...		religious nuts and the Republicans, thank you.
http://www.cs.siu.edu/~jkoren/		-- The Monarch, "Venture Brothers"

[Apt-proxy-users] Installing the apt-proxy-v2?

[Elmo <el...@ji...>]

=2D----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

I got the version in cvs but cant figure out how to install it? Can anyone=
=20
help me. Thanks.
=2D----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFB2f5tctNFyQJObrsRApTiAJ9X/pts8KkaEIj3J29bmiFddG0JSgCgjsRz
NwwT9WBzmQB1Zl1yJuBfdiU=3D
=3DwRDC
=2D----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[Apt-proxy-users] [ apt-proxy-Bugs-1094518 ] apt-proxy-v2-1.9.5 on testing

[SourceForge.net <no...@so...>]

Bugs item #1094518, was opened at 2005-01-02 09:14
Message generated for change (Tracker Item Submitted) made by Item Submitter
You can respond by visiting: 
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=112078&aid=1094518&group_id=12078

Category: None
Group: None
Status: Open
Resolution: None
Priority: 5
Submitted By: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody)
Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody)
Summary: apt-proxy-v2-1.9.5 on testing

Initial Comment:
Exception in Twisted when sources.list has a '/' at the end 
or there is a corrupt or partial mirror site 
in /etc/apt-proxy/apt-proxy-v2.conf 
 
2005/01/03 03:41 EST [Channel,1,10.0.0.8] [debug:9]Request: 
GET /debian-non-US/dists/testing/non-US/non-free/binary-i386/Packages.gz 
2005/01/03 03:41 EST [Channel,1,10.0.0.8] 
[debug:9]apt_proxy.apt_proxy.FetcherDummy 
2005/01/03 03:41 EST [Channel,1,10.0.0.8] [client:9]Request 
uri: /debian-non-US/dists/testing/non-US/non-free/binary-i386/Packages.gz 
2005/01/03 03:41 EST [Channel,1,10.0.0.8] 
[debug:9]check_cached: /var/cache/apt-proxy/debian-non-US/dists/testing/non-US/non-free/binary-i386/Packages.gz 
2005/01/03 03:41 EST [Channel,1,10.0.0.8] [debug:9]Header: 
Host: cyteous.inet:8000 
2005/01/03 03:41 EST [Channel,1,10.0.0.8] [debug:9]Header: 
Connection: keep-alive 
2005/01/03 03:41 EST [Channel,1,10.0.0.8] [debug:9]Header: 
If-Modified-Since: Thu, 20 Nov 2003 19:52:24 GMT 
2005/01/03 03:41 EST [Channel,1,10.0.0.8] [debug:9]Header: 
User-Agent: Debian APT-HTTP/1.3 
2005/01/03 03:41 EST [Channel,1,10.0.0.8] [debug:9]End of 
request. 
2005/01/03 03:41 EST [Channel,1,10.0.0.8] [debug:9]Request: 
GET /debian-non-US/dists/testing/non-US/non-free/binary-i386/Release 
2005/01/03 03:41 EST [Channel,1,10.0.0.8] 
[debug:9]apt_proxy.apt_proxy.FetcherDummy 
2005/01/03 03:41 EST [Channel,1,10.0.0.8] [client:9]Request 
uri: /debian-non-US/dists/testing/non-US/non-free/binary-i386/Release 
2005/01/03 03:41 EST [Channel,1,10.0.0.8] 
[debug:9]check_cached: /var/cache/apt-proxy/debian-non-US/dists/testing/non-US/non-free/binary-i386/Release 
2005/01/03 03:41 EST [FetcherHttp,client] [client:9]We are not 
on runningFetchers!!! 
2005/01/03 03:41 EST [FetcherHttp,client] [client:9]
{'/debian-non-US/dists/testing/non-US/contrib/binary-i386/Packages.gz': 
<apt_proxy.apt_proxy.FetcherDummy instance at 0x851988c>, 
'/debian-non-US/dists/unstabl 
e/non-US/non-free/binary-i386/Packages.gz': 
<apt_proxy.apt_proxy.FetcherDummy instance at 0x8517bac>, 
'/debian-non-US/dists/testing/non-US/contrib/binary-i386/Release': 
<apt_proxy.apt_proxy.FetcherDummy instance 
 at 0x85a84a4>, 
'/debian-non-US/dists/testing/non-US/non-free/binary-i386/Packages.gz': 
<apt_proxy.apt_proxy.FetcherDummy instance at 0x8587ef4>, 
'/debian-non-US/dists/unstable/non-US/contrib/binary-i386/Release 
': <apt_proxy.apt_proxy.FetcherDummy instance at 
0x859a3ac>, 
'/debian-non-US/dists/testing/non-US/main/binary-i386/Packages.gz': 
<apt_proxy.apt_proxy.FetcherDummy instance at 0x81ec1dc>, 
'/debian-non-US/dists/un 
stable/non-US/non-free/binary-i386/Release': 
<apt_proxy.apt_proxy.FetcherDummy instance at 0x85a026c>, 
'/debian-non-US/dists/testing/non-US/main/binary-i386/Release': 
<apt_proxy.apt_proxy.FetcherDummy instance a 
t 0x85c50d4>, 
'/debian-non-US/dists/testing/non-US/non-free/binary-i386/Release': 
<apt_proxy.apt_proxy.FetcherDummy instance at 0x851095c>} 
2005/01/03 03:41 EST [FetcherHttp,client] Traceback (most 
recent call last): 
          File 
"/usr/lib/python2.2/site-packages/twisted/application/app.py", 
line 90, in runReactorWithLogging 
            reactor.run() 
          File 
"/usr/lib/python2.2/site-packages/twisted/internet/default.py", 
line 126, in run 
            self.mainLoop() 
          File 
"/usr/lib/python2.2/site-packages/twisted/internet/default.py", 
line 137, in mainLoop 
            self.doIteration(t) 
          File 
"/usr/lib/python2.2/site-packages/twisted/internet/default.py", 
line 526, in doSelect 
            _logrun(selectable, _drdw, selectable, method, dict) 
        --- <exception caught here> --- 
          File 
"/usr/lib/python2.2/site-packages/twisted/python/log.py", line 65, 
in callWithLogger 
            callWithContext({"system": lp}, func, *args, **kw) 
          File 
"/usr/lib/python2.2/site-packages/twisted/python/log.py", line 52, 
in callWithContext 
            return context.call({ILogContext: newCtx}, func, *args, 
**kw) 
          File 
"/usr/lib/python2.2/site-packages/twisted/python/context.py", 
line 43, in callWithContext 
            return func(*args,**kw) 
          File 
"/usr/lib/python2.2/site-packages/twisted/internet/default.py", 
line 549, in _doReadOrWrite 
            selectable.connectionLost(f) 
          File 
"/usr/lib/python2.2/site-packages/twisted/internet/tcp.py", line 
447, in connectionLost 
            Connection.connectionLost(self, reason) 
          File 
"/usr/lib/python2.2/site-packages/twisted/internet/tcp.py", line 
294, in connectionLost 
            protocol.connectionLost(reason) 
          File 
"/usr/lib/python2.2/site-packages/twisted/protocols/http.py", line 
361, in connectionLost 
            self.handleResponseEnd() 
          File 
"/usr/lib/python2.2/site-packages/twisted/protocols/http.py", line 
367, in handleResponseEnd 
            self.handleResponse(b) 
          File 
"/usr/lib/python2.2/site-packages/apt_proxy/apt_proxy.py", line 
509, in handleResponse 
            self.apDataEnd(buffer) 
          File 
"/usr/lib/python2.2/site-packages/apt_proxy/apt_proxy.py", line 
345, in apDataEnd 
            self.apEnd() 
          File 
"/usr/lib/python2.2/site-packages/apt_proxy/apt_proxy.py", line 
358, in apEnd 
            raise exceptions.KeyError 
        exceptions.KeyError: 
 
 

----------------------------------------------------------------------

You can respond by visiting: 
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=112078&aid=1094518&group_id=12078

[Apt-proxy-users] Importing from V1 to V2

[Jay S. <me...@he...>]

Hi,

Are there any directions for importing from a V1 to a V2 apt-proxy?

I have V1 running on an old box with a an updated cache of "sarge", I 
have a new box with V2 of apt-proxy on it, I'd like to copy/import the 
stuff from my old repository to my new one

<an aside> Is anyone using the apt-proxy wiki at:
http://wiki.debian.net/index.cgi?AptProxy

Thanks
Jay

[Apt-proxy-users] Re: [Apt-proxy-users]

[mi <ww...@gm...>]

o well, i just meant: cu on the other side :)




    =B0
 /\/

[Apt-proxy-users] unsubscribe sadute wwm@gmx.ch

[mi <ww...@gm...>]

Re: [Apt-proxy-users] sarge apt-proxy

[Jay S. <me...@he...>]

Chris,

I responded earlier, but I never saw it post.  So I'll do it again.

Thanks for the guidance.  I'm saving your email for when I'm done
building this machine

Thanks
Jay
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Chris Halls" <ha...@de...>
To: "Jay Strauss" <me...@he...>
Cc: <apt...@li...>
Sent: Wednesday, November 24, 2004 12:06 PM
Subject: Re: [Apt-proxy-users] sarge apt-proxy


> On Wed, 2004-11-24 at 11:49 -0600, Jay Strauss wrote:
> > Can you break this down for me?  What am I supposed (recommended) to
> > install on a fresh Sarge box?  Where I'm I supposed to get the .deb
file?
>
> You have a choice, either to add testing-proposed-updates to your
> sources.list, or to download and install the package by hand.
> testing-proposed-updates does not contain just apt-proxy - see
>
>
http://ftp.debian.org/dists/testing-proposed-updates/main/binary-i386/Packages
>
> for all the packages with new testing versions waiting to be approved.
> If you wish to just install apt-proxy by hand, execute the following:
>
> wget
http://ftp.debian.org/pool/main/a/apt-proxy/apt-proxy_1.3.7_all.deb
> sudo dpkg -i apt-proxy_1.3.7_all.deb
>
> Chris
>
>
>

Re: [Apt-proxy-users] sarge apt-proxy

[Jay S. <me...@he...>]

Chris Halls wrote:
> 
> wget http://ftp.debian.org/pool/main/a/apt-proxy/apt-proxy_1.3.7_all.deb
> sudo dpkg -i apt-proxy_1.3.7_all.deb
> 
> Chris
> 

Thanks Chris.  I'm saving this for my box I'm in the process of building

Jay

Re: [Apt-proxy-users] sarge apt-proxy

[Chris H. <ha...@de...>]

On Wed, 2004-11-24 at 11:49 -0600, Jay Strauss wrote: 
> Can you break this down for me?  What am I supposed (recommended) to 
> install on a fresh Sarge box?  Where I'm I supposed to get the .deb file?

You have a choice, either to add testing-proposed-updates to your
sources.list, or to download and install the package by hand.
testing-proposed-updates does not contain just apt-proxy - see 

http://ftp.debian.org/dists/testing-proposed-updates/main/binary-i386/Packages

for all the packages with new testing versions waiting to be approved.
If you wish to just install apt-proxy by hand, execute the following:

wget http://ftp.debian.org/pool/main/a/apt-proxy/apt-proxy_1.3.7_all.deb
sudo dpkg -i apt-proxy_1.3.7_all.deb

Chris

Re: [Apt-proxy-users] sarge apt-proxy

[Jay S. <me...@he...>]

Chris,

Can you break this down for me?  What am I supposed (recommended) to 
install on a fresh Sarge box?  Where I'm I supposed to get the .deb file?

Thanks
Jay

Re: [Apt-proxy-users] sarge apt-proxy

[Chris H. <ha...@de...>]

On Wed, 2004-11-24 at 12:55 +0100, mi wrote:
> > http://ftp.debian.org/pool/main/a/apt-proxy/apt-proxy_1.3.7_all.deb
> 
> So i guess i see 1.9.17 running here because that once was available
> for sarge, but was downgraded since then. 

Yes, the release managers removed it because there were quite a few
problems.  The problems are documented in the Debian bug tracking
system.

> In fact, i noticed some minor issues (especially with responisveness)
> but in general in works fine. If it's just for home office and not for
> real 'production' use, i'd give it a try.
> In the rare case ap2 doesn't respond immediately i use to restart the
> initscript.
> While updating laptops (only one after another) via ethernet crosslink
> once a week from the server, this is quite ok for me.

Yes, as you say it can be a memory hog, and it leaves temporary files
open.  Restarting apt-proxy every now and again will clear these until
someone has time to look at them.

> (hmmm... how would it perform to update them altogether wireless ?)

You mean, accessing apt-proxy from a machine connected by wireless?
That will be fine.

Chris

Re: [Apt-proxy-users] sarge apt-proxy

[mi <ww...@gm...>]

Chris Halls <ha...@de...>:

> http://ftp.debian.org/pool/main/a/apt-proxy/apt-proxy_1.3.7_all.deb

So i guess i see 1.9.17 running here because that once was available for sa=
rge, but was downgraded since then. In fact, i noticed some minor issues (e=
specially with responisveness) but in general in works fine. If it's just f=
or home office and not for real 'production' use, i'd give it a try.
In the rare case ap2 doesn't respond immediately i use to restart the inits=
cript.
While updating laptops (only one after another) via ethernet crosslink once=
 a week from the server, this is quite ok for me.

(hmmm... how would it perform to update them altogether wireless ?)

=20

















































    =B0
 /\/

Re: [Apt-proxy-users] sarge apt-proxy

[Chris H. <ha...@de...>]

Hello Luis,

On Tue, 2004-11-23 at 01:43 +0000, Luis Matos wrote:
> The point is that, in my opinion, in the site's page there are no 
> relations to sarge, no branch is there for it, or what branch (stable or 
> unstable) to use.

I am still waiting for 1.3.7 to be accepted into testing.  It is
currently waiting in testing-proposed-updates.

apt-proxy (1.3.7) testing-proposed-updates; urgency=low

  * Resurrect version 1 for Sarge, because version 2 is still not
    stable enough to go into stable
  * When GNU sleep is available, sleep for smaller periods of time.  This
    increases apt-proxy's responsiveness on faster machines.
  * Explicitly tell rsync which directory to use for its temporary files.
    (closes: #187094)
  * Add See also: apt-proxy-import to apt-proxy(8)
  * Fix apt-proxy.conf path in French manpage, thanks to Julien Louis
  * Prevent shell expansion of input lines
  * Add section about backing up the apt-proxy cache to FAQ
  * Update apt-proxy.conf manpage:
     - Clarify that MAX_VERSIONS is the only parameter that uses Packages
       files
     - Document WGET option, thanks Andree Leidenfrost (closes: #190926)
     - Document DEBUG option (closes: #194185)
     - Make it clear that apt-proxy does not need to be reloaded for changes
       to take effect
  * Update README:
     - Remove section about Debian Potato
     - Add FAQ about backing up apt-proxy cache

http://ftp.debian.org/pool/main/a/apt-proxy/apt-proxy_1.3.7_all.deb

Chris

[Apt-proxy-users] sarge apt-proxy

[Luis M. <ga...@ot...>]

I read that apt-proxy that is in unstable is a little bit unstable it 
self to go into sarge.

The point is that woody servers are reaching an end, and new servers had 
to go directly to sarge if they whant to keep in debian.

I have 2 server and a workstation served by an apt-proxy. I'm using 
sarge on both servers and workstation using apt-proxy stable with no 
trouble.

The point is that, in my opinion, in the site's page there are no 
relations to sarge, no branch is there for it, or what branch (stable or 
unstable) to use.

Some people have 2 or more workstations at home and want to install 
apt-proxy and they will install unstable and have the risk to have some 
break. For them it was also nice to have a sarge entry at the page.

I don't say to create a testing branch, but to say " if you use sarge, 
install apt-proxy stable" or not.


regards

Luis Matos
(sorry my lowsy english, but ...)