Matt Brown wrote: > Ben Hutchings wrote: > > > However, both these actions are conditional on the aptproxy user not > > existing. Therefore if apt-proxy is removed and reinstalled, the the > > ownership of /var/cache/apt-proxy will not be changed as required. > > (This happened on my system, where I accidentally deleted > > /var/cache/aptproxy and attempted to repair it by reinstalling.) Is it > > possible that you have installed apt-proxy more than once? > > There was almost certainly the previous version of the package (from > woody) removed but not purged on the system. > > > Given that the "silent failure" is noted in the log, I think apt-proxy > > is doing the best it can in this situation. But the postinst script is > > buggy. > > I don't understand how you think it's doing the best it can. Why > restrict the permissions fixes to only run when the username is created?
You misunderstand me. I meant that if apt-proxy does not have
permission to write to the cache dir, serving files without caching them
is the best it can do.
> Where is it noted in the log? I hardly think an obscure backtrace counts
> as a log message to inform the user that the package is not caching as
> it should.
Messages such as
exceptions.OSError: [Errno 13] Permission denied:
'/var/cache/apt-proxy/debian-security'
seems pretty clear to me, though the backtrace is arguably redundant.
Ben.
--
Ben Hutchings
The obvious mathematical breakthrough [to break modern encryption] would be
development of an easy way to factor large prime numbers. - Bill Gates
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
