On Sat, Sep 27, 2003 at 04:39:52PM +1000, Paul Gear wrote: > As the subject says, i think 'useNoSSLForPackages' is rather badly > conceived. Whenever i see an option that has the word "No" or "Don't" > in it, alarm bells ring in my head. > heh, yeah. I think it was supposed to be "useNoSSLServerURLForPackages". But then, I've never been one for picking good names for things. > This is a recipe for confusion. Can we get future versions of the > option renamed to "useSSLForPackages"? (I would make it off by default, > too, since many packages are rather large and some of us still pay a lot > for bandwidth.) > Possibly. As mentioned, it was origianally added to up2date to allow people to setup squid caches (with a suitable tweaked squid config to cache big "objects"...) Adrian
