Hi Eric, On Mon, May 23, 2005 at 09:50:07AM -0400, Eric Cooper wrote: > OK, so I guess the issue is having Packages inconsistent with > Packages.gz for a given distribution, because, say, one was downloaded > by apt-get and the other by pbuilder? Good point -- I'll look into > it.
Yep, that was my original point. It was a major shock when my repository
went from 1.4GB to 900MB after deleting the uncompressed Packages file
for sid and rerunning gc_approx.
Here's an example that I forgot to fix earlier:
/var/cache/approx/debian/project/experimental/main/binary-i386% ls -l
total 860
-rw-r--r-- 1 approx approx 696805 2005-04-20 05:08 Packages
-rw-r--r-- 1 approx approx 173071 2005-05-24 10:03 Packages.gz
-rw-r--r-- 1 approx approx 104 2005-05-24 10:03 Release
Come to think of it, I may have been wrong about this bug report
altogether. I'm starting to suspect that those uncompressed Packages
files were probably left over from my transition from apt-proxy to
approx (hence they were never updated again, with gc_approx still using
them). Having refreshed pbuilder this morning, I noticed that it uses
Packages.gz. What's using Packages.bz2 is debootstrap (which is used
only to create pbuilder's chroot).
Feel free to close this report now. I'll reopen if I notice uncompressed
Packages file reappearing out of nowhere and getting stale.
Packages.bz2 is unrecognised by gc_approx and get deleted by it anyway.
So continuing this behaviour might be a bit unefficient, but probably
safer in the longrun considering how rare debootstrap is called.
Cheers,
Andrew "Netsnipe" Lau
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew "Netsnipe" Lau <http://www.cse.unsw.edu.au/~alau/>
Debian GNU/Linux Maintainer & Computer Science, UNSW
-
"Nobody expects the Debian Inquisition!
Our two weapons are fear and surprise...and ruthless efficiency!"
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
