Open GoogleCodeExporter opened 8 years ago
Yo,
So are you asking why I haven't gone through and changed a lot of the "squid"
mentions to Lusca?
Its because I'm trying to minimise the runtime configuration and packaging
differences to Squid-2.
What are you changing to "lusca-cache" in particular?
Original comment by adrian.c...@gmail.com
on 7 Oct 2009 at 3:02
Thanx for the feedback Adrian.
It was more of a question regarding the longterm plans around lusca, if
branding is
heading towards lusca in the future then I wanted to start assisting with the
conversions.
For now I'll then keep to the squid naming and just tweak the versioning.
Original comment by regar...@gmail.com
on 7 Oct 2009 at 3:24
Hi Adrian,
Sorry to dredge this one up again - while you and I obviously both use lusca as
a
replacement to squid - I'd like to assist (if this is what you wish) to over
time get
the name changes to lusca for binaries and headers etc.
I understand the want for minimal runtime differences, but by not doing this
we're
making the inclusion of lusca-cache as a package (in distributions) somewhat
more
complicated.
It's easy enough to add all the debian bits - I use it like that daily - it's
just
that if we want to really get this into wider use the package name will have to
be
implemented.
What's your thoughts on this?
Original comment by regar...@gmail.com
on 2 Jan 2010 at 10:25
I'm of two minds about this. I'd prefer that for now Lusca is just a drop in
replacement for Squid as much as
possible, rather than a separate bit of software which may end up coexisting.
So I'm not really sure what to do in this instance. Why is it a problem that
the package is "lusca" but it still installs
to all of the Squid directory locations (except for say, /usr/share/doc/) ?
Original comment by adrian.c...@gmail.com
on 19 Jan 2010 at 9:02
I'm guessing Linux Standards Base may have a fit ;-) -- lemme read on what the
ideal
is vs what makes sense to us ;-) I'll revert after that.
Original comment by regar...@gmail.com
on 27 Jan 2010 at 11:54
Howdy!
I'm planning on leaving the lusca package with the squid related config, share,
etc
paths for now. I really do want to make this as much as a drop in replacement
as can
be allowed (so both upgrades and downgrades are seamless.)
Do you think Debian/Ubuntu would be cool with that? Or do I have to maintain my
own
binary package?
Original comment by adrian.c...@gmail.com
on 27 Mar 2010 at 10:17
Original issue reported on code.google.com by
regar...@gmail.com
on 7 Oct 2009 at 2:55