On Thu, Sep 09, 2021 at 02:54:21PM +0200, Timo Röhling wrote:
* Michael Stone <mst...@debian.org> [2021-09-09 08:32]:
I'm honestly not sure who the target audience for auto-apt-proxy
is--apparently someone who has an infrastructure including a
proxy, possibly the ability to set dns records, etc., but can't
change defaults at install time or via some sort of runtime
configuration management?
The same reason you might want to deploy WPAD instead of preconfiguring
proxy settings in web browsers: flexibility. For example, we use
auto-apt-proxy for laptops which roam between different networks.
It's simple to configure, has virtually no maintenance overhead and
degrades gracefully.
None of that speaks to whether an organization that deploys such a
thing has the ability to manage other configuration settings, even
if for some settings there's a desire for additional flexibility.
I don't understand your point.
You asked for a target audience for auto-apt-proxy. I gave you a
legitimate (and real-world) example for such a deployment. Why
should it matter whether or not an organization has other
configuration facilities?
Because the controversy concerning changing the default is over whether
it's reasonable for someone using auto-apt-proxy to have to manage
additional configuration settings. If the target audience is someone who
has the ability to manage the infrastructure required by auto-apt-proxy
but not the ability to manage anything else then I guess it's a valid
criticism (but I have trouble envisioning that). If the auto-apt-proxy
target audience can manage both the proxy infrastructure *and*
sources.list (either at install time or run time) then the criticism is
basically academic and not generally a real-world issue.
