mirror method should with with file location

Bug #1412758 reported by Jesse Pretorius
6
This bug affects 1 person
Affects Status Importance Assigned to Milestone
apt (Ubuntu)
Won't Fix
Undecided
Rolf Leggewie

Bug Description

It'd be really great if the mirror method could be configured to use a local file for the mirror list.

eg in /etc/apt/source.list.d/mysoftware.list
deb mirror://file://apt/mirrors/mysoftware.txt trusty main

Instead of pulling the file via http (as per current behaviour) and choosing a mirror from that list, apt should read the local file and choose from the list in the same way.

Description: Ubuntu 14.04.1 LTS
Release: 14.04

apt:
  Installed: 1.0.1ubuntu2.6
  Candidate: 1.0.1ubuntu2.6
  Version table:
 *** 1.0.1ubuntu2.6 0
        500 http://mirror.rackspace.com/ubuntu/ trusty-updates/main amd64 Packages
        100 /var/lib/dpkg/status
     1.0.1ubuntu2.5 0
        500 http://mirror.rackspace.com/ubuntu/ trusty-security/main amd64 Packages
     1.0.1ubuntu2 0
        500 http://mirror.rackspace.com/ubuntu/ trusty/main amd64 Packages

Revision history for this message
Rolf Leggewie (r0lf) wrote :

Where is the advantage? It's easy enough to host a file these days and without a net connection the whole update business isn't going to work. Not sure if this would be a lot of work to implement. But before anybody goes ahead and thinks about doing that let's make sure this is worth the effort. Please make your case.

Changed in apt (Ubuntu):
assignee: nobody → Rolf Leggewie (r0lf)
status: New → Incomplete
Revision history for this message
Jesse Pretorius (jesse-pretorius) wrote :

@r0lf Agreed that it is easy enough to workaround, so I wouldn't call it an urgent requirement - however, having to stand up a web server to host a file in the environment is an overhead which could be avoided if using a file was an option. When using configuration management tooling like ansible, chef, puppet, etc the placement and changing of a local file is useful and carries very little overhead.

Revision history for this message
Rolf Leggewie (r0lf) wrote :

So, you are saying it would be convenient. Maybe that is the case. But it's not what I was asking for. I was asking for arguments why this is necessary and why the current solution is insufficient. Coding this up is going to tie up developper resources, so there better be a use case for this (on-going!) cost. I don't see it. This works well as it is. Sorry.

Changed in apt (Ubuntu):
status: Incomplete → Won't Fix
To post a comment you must log in.
This report contains Public information  
Everyone can see this information.

Other bug subscribers

Remote bug watches

Bug watches keep track of this bug in other bug trackers.