package apt-cacher
tag 785681 pending
thanks
On Tue, Jun 02, 2015 at 02:38:04AM +, Michael Deegan wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Mon, 1 Jun 2015 at 19:05:19, Mark Hindley wrote:
> > I have been thinking about this, in particular this thread:
> > http://www.perlmonks.org/bare/?node_id=167036
> >
> >
Hello,
On Mon, 1 Jun 2015 at 19:05:19, Mark Hindley wrote:
> I have been thinking about this, in particular this thread:
> http://www.perlmonks.org/bare/?node_id=167036
>
> shutdown(1) seems to be the best we can do to pass the EOF on. How does this
> patch work for you?
Seems to work, accordin
On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 09:22:40AM +, Michael Deegan wrote:
> It does not...because the socket continues to be at EOF. :P
>
> Doing "last LOOP" instead does work, but makes me wonder uncomfortably
> whether this would result (under certain currently unspecified and
> unreproducible circumsta
Hello,
On Tue, 19 May 2015 at 16:32:40, Mark Hindley wrote:
> On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 01:42:23PM +0800, Michael Deegan wrote:
>> Some poking around led to the discovery that ssl_proxy() doesn't appear to
>> notice EOF on the upstream connection, leading to an infinite loop. I added
>> a debugging
On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 01:42:23PM +0800, Michael Deegan wrote:
> Package: apt-cacher
> Version: 1.7.10
> Severity: normal
>
> Dear Maintainer,
>
> Hello, after adding HTTPS sources ("deb https://deb.packager.io/gh/pkgr/gogs
> wheezy pkgr")
> on a client PC I noticed apt-cacher's CPU usage go th
Package: apt-cacher
Version: 1.7.10
Severity: normal
Dear Maintainer,
Hello, after adding HTTPS sources ("deb https://deb.packager.io/gh/pkgr/gogs
wheezy pkgr")
on a client PC I noticed apt-cacher's CPU usage go through the roof.
Some poking around led to the discovery that ssl_proxy() doesn't
6 matches
Mail list logo
