Main Inclusion Report for apt-cacher

[Fabián Rodríguez]

Binary package hint: apt-cacher

https://wiki.ubuntu.com/MainInclusionReportApt-Cacher

filed because I think this is an important tool to help speed up and improve LAN setups and upgrades/updates.

[Matthias Klose (doko)]

apparently there are mixed feelings.

 - it looks like debian maintainance got faster (new upstream release in Jan 2008)
 - there are other alternatives, like apt-proxy. why prefer apt-cacher?
 - Nick Barcet came up with the idea to provide a configuration for squid instead
   (which already is in main).

[Julian Andres Klode (juliank)]

In my opinion, apt-cacher-ng (written in C) seems to be a better option.

It uses less resources and is faster than apt-cacher.

[Loïc Minier (lool)]

I personally use squid as well; this works in most tools by simply exporting http_proxy, covers more use cases, and doesn't require any specific APT config (e.g. my build environments transparently benefit from it).

[Martin Jackson (mhjacks)]

apt-cacher and apt-cacher-ng are both pretty aggressively maintained. The version of apt-cacher that will be in jaunty has sprouted several new dependencies, though, as well as new features.

I have some experience with squid, too.

+1 from me on having Ubuntu recommend a specific apt-caching solution. I'm kind of indifferent as to which package is used, or if there's just a guide for squid config.

[Nick Barcet (nijaba)]

Soren: As you use apt-cacher together with vm-builder, could you please share your thoughts on this subject?

[Fabián Rodríguez (magicfab)]

I have several reports indicating apt-cacher-ng is compatible with apt-cacher config files and is faster/leaner than apt-cacher.

I favor using apt-cacher* instead of squid as squid is a general purpose proxy tool as opposed to apt-cacher which is specifically designed and optimized for packages.

I am attaching apt-cacher-ng documentation which provides more information on it.

[Martin Jackson (mhjacks)]

I don't think acng is config-file compatible with apt-cacher. acng has several interesting features (like backend redundancy) that apt-cacher doesn't. Since I first posted on this bug, there have been at least one upstream release of each.

I've been using squid and apt-cacher and I have to say they both fit the bill. For vm building, an apt-cacher or acng solution would be preferable, since in squid you generally want files to drop out of cache when not used, and files in main will drop relatively quickly if not refreshed. On the other hand, squid works really well for keeping systems up to date once you've built them, and a lot of things that make life easier running systems (like seeing changelogs in update manager). Squid tends to handle things like do-release-upgrade better, though apt-cacher now has support for that.

There's the possibility of a hybrid solution as well, using jesred (a redirector for squid) that redirects ubuntu archive requests to apt-cacher or one of its siblings:

http://www.porcheron.info/bandwith-optimization-squid-apt-cacher-and-jesred/

This could be adapted to acng trivially.

[Martin Pitt (pitti)]

This MIR is stale and has not been updated in several months, thus I close it for now. If you are still interested in it and want to maintain this package, please reopen.

However, there does not seem to be clear consensus between apt-cacher and apt-cacher-ng, squid can replace most of the use cases, and I don't see a huge benefit of the package being in main.

[Fabián Rodríguez (magicfab)]

I'd agree with closing this, apt-cacher-ng still is easier to configure than squid IMO.

[Martin Jackson (mhjacks)]

I'm OK with closing it too. Yes, ACNG is much easier for most purposes than squid.