20 Feb
2019
20 Feb
'19
9:41 a.m.
I have in the back of my mind that there's an email thread that may be
related to this, but I can't find it in my mail archives unfortunately -
it may even not be this list. Anyway...
I've just been looking to do a do-release-upgrade from Ubuntu 16.04 to
18.04 and come across a raft of error messages along the lines of:
Err http://apt-cacher.lon.bitfolk.com/ubuntu/gb.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu bionic/main
Sources
403 Forbidden file type or location:
/ubuntu/gb.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/dists/bionic/main/source/by-hash/SHA256/0e05b8e93cbdfe5d41306e9d34c893fa23f3087a58c637b882cb0f133375a133
[IP: 2001:ba8:1f1:f079::2 80]
My Google-fu is failing me at the moment as nothing I'm finding is quite
matching up, so I thought I'd see if the collective knowledgebase of
fellow Bitfolk folks had come across this.
One way around, I guess, would be to bypass the Bitfolk cache, but that
doesn't seem to make sense, particularly in the long run if the change
ends up needing to be permanent. Is there a change I can make locally,
or is it down to the Bitfolk cache itself, possibly waiting for a file
to be re-cached? I'm guessing it is likely related to recent updates to
apt.
--
Paul Tansom | Aptanet Ltd. | https://www.aptanet.com/ | 023 9238 0001
Vice Chair, FSB Portsmouth & SE Hampshire Branch | http://www.fsb.org.uk/
=============================================================================
Registered in England | Company No: 4905028 | Registered Office: Ralls House,
Parklands Business Park, Forrest Road, Denmead, Waterlooville, Hants, PO7 6XP
20 Feb
20 Feb
12:25 p.m.
New subject: Bitfolk apt-cacher "403 Forbidden file type or location"
Hi Paul,
On Wed, Feb 20, 2019 at 09:41:03AM +0000, Paul Tansom wrote:
I have in the back of my mind that there's an
email thread that may be
related to this, but I can't find it in my mail archives unfortunately -
it may even not be this list. Anyway...
What you may be thinking of is problems we have had caching the file
that is called:
/ubuntu-uk/dists/${releasename}-updates/main/dist-upgrader-all/current/${releasename}.tar.gz
as in, a copy is requested and then some time later it is updated on the
source but apt-cacher-ng doesn't seem to notice, so when someone later
tries to upgrade they get a checksum mismatch.
I have never been able to determine where exactly the problem lies, i.e.
if it is a bug in apt-cacher-ng or somethign wrong that Ubuntu mirrors
do. Here is the conversation we had about that last time:
https://lists.bitfolk.com/lurker/message/20180416.001836.42a993f0.en.html
and at that time I banned the following URL match from being cached:
DontCache: /dist-upgrader-all/.*\.tar\.gz(\.gpg)?$
Requests for URLs that match that are passed through, not cached.
I've just been looking to do a do-release-upgrade
from Ubuntu 16.04 to
18.04 and come across a raft of error messages along the lines of:
Err http://apt-cacher.lon.bitfolk.com/ubuntu/gb.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu bionic/main
Sources
403 Forbidden file type or location:
/ubuntu/gb.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/dists/bionic/main/source/by-hash/SHA256/0e05b8e93cbdfe5d41306e9d34c893fa23f3087a58c637b882cb0f133375a133
[IP: 2001:ba8:1f1:f079::2 80]
This seems to be a new problem, not the same as above.
I'll try to have a look why the apt-cacher-ng is not accepting that URL.
It does work when pointed directly at the mirror:
$ curl -v
http://gb.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/dists/bionic/main/source/by-hash/SHA256…
f3087a58c637b882cb0f133375a133 >/dev/null
* Hostname was NOT found in DNS cache
% Total % Received % Xferd Average Speed Time Time Time Current
Dload Upload Total Spent Left Speed
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 --:--:-- --:--:-- --:--:-- 0
* Trying 2001:67c:1560:8001::11...
* Connected to gb.archive.ubuntu.com (2001:67c:1560:8001::11) port 80 (#0)
GET
/ubuntu/dists/bionic/main/source/by-hash/SHA256/0e05b8e93cbdfe5d41306e9d34c893fa23f3087a58c637b882cb0f133375a133
HTTP/1.1
User-Agent: curl/7.38.0
Host: gb.archive.ubuntu.com
Accept: */*
< HTTP/1.1 200 OK
< Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2019 12:21:32 GMT
* Server Apache/2.4.18 (Ubuntu) is not blacklisted
< Server: Apache/2.4.18 (Ubuntu)
< Last-Modified: Thu, 26 Apr 2018 17:43:25 GMT
< ETag: "ca77c-56ac3eca5a940"
< Accept-Ranges: bytes
< Content-Length: 829308
<
{ [data not shown]
100 809k 100 809k 0 0 16.1M 0 --:--:-- --:--:-- --:--:-- 19.2M
* Connection #0 to host gb.archive.ubuntu.com left intact
In the mean time if it is causing you a problem with your
do-release-upgrade my best suggestion is to remove the first
"apt-cacher.lon.bitfolk.com/ubuntu/" out of every URL in your
/etc/apt/sources.list, "sudo apt update" and try again.
Cheers,
Andy
--
https://bitfolk.com/ -- No-nonsense VPS hosting
3:37 p.m.
New subject: Bitfolk apt-cacher "403 Forbidden file type or location"
On Wed, 20 Feb 2019 12:25:44 +0000
Andy Smith <andy(a)bitfolk.com> wrote:
In the mean time if it is causing you a problem with
your
do-release-upgrade my best suggestion is to remove the first
"apt-cacher.lon.bitfolk.com/ubuntu/" out of every URL in your
/etc/apt/sources.list, "sudo apt update" and try again.
Cheers,
Andy
Better still use Debian (like most of Hants LUG did till that upstart
U????? came along)
--
John Lewis
Debian & the GeneWeb genealogical data server
3:59 p.m.
New subject: Bitfolk apt-cacher "403 Forbidden file type or location"
** john lewis <zen57162(a)zen.co.uk> [2019-02-20 15:38]:
On Wed, 20 Feb 2019 12:25:44 +0000
Andy Smith <andy(a)bitfolk.com> wrote:
** end quote [john lewis]
Well I was using Debian until their policy caused me too much hassle
getting Linux installed on some hardware. It was easier to try Ubuntu
(given I had a handy CD) than try to rebuild the install CD with the
necessary drivers. Then a combination brand recognition for non Linux
customers and the regular release cycle / LTS resulted in gradually
standardising. That's about 13 years ago now - wow!
Of course, given the similarity of the infrastructure software used this
could be an issue for the Debain repositories too :-)
Hi John, btw. I was chatting Hants LUG at the PLUG meet last weekend
with someone who came along to some or the early meets. Took me back a
bit!
--
Paul Tansom | Aptanet Ltd. | https://www.aptanet.com/ | 023 9238 0001
Vice Chair, FSB Portsmouth & SE Hampshire Branch | http://www.fsb.org.uk/
=============================================================================
Registered in England | Company No: 4905028 | Registered Office: Ralls House,
Parklands Business Park, Forrest Road, Denmead, Waterlooville, Hants, PO7 6XP
In the mean time if it is causing you a problem
with your
do-release-upgrade my best suggestion is to remove the first
"apt-cacher.lon.bitfolk.com/ubuntu/" out of every URL in your
/etc/apt/sources.list, "sudo apt update" and try again.
Cheers,
Andy
Better still use Debian (like most of Hants LUG did till that upstart
U????? came along)
21 Feb
21 Feb
8:28 a.m.
New subject: Bitfolk apt-cacher "403 Forbidden file type or location"
On Wed, 20 Feb 2019 15:59:24 +0000
Paul Tansom <paul(a)aptanet.com> wrote:
Well I was using Debian until their policy caused me
too much hassle
getting Linux installed on some hardware. It was easier to try Ubuntu
(given I had a handy CD) than try to rebuild the install CD with the
necessary drivers. Then a combination brand recognition for non Linux
customers and the regular release cycle / LTS resulted in gradually
standardising. That's about 13 years ago now - wow!
Of course, given the similarity of the infrastructure software used
this could be an issue for the Debain repositories too :-)
Hi John, btw. I was chatting Hants LUG at the PLUG meet last weekend
with someone who came along to some or the early meets. Took me back a
bit!
Hi Paul
Seeing your name on here again prompted me to respond in fun, I am
still very much an advocate of Debian and have had no hardware or
repository problems. I was quite pleased when I cam across Raspberry Pi
through the partner of one of our daughters and realised that Raspbian
is a Debian derivative which is fun because Angus is a diehard Windows
IT guy with a local authority but loves his PI
I attended Bristol LUG for a while but distance and their main interest
at the time being focussed on hardware I gave up. I am no longer
active with Family History but still keep my systems updated.
I have a Shuttle for my headless server running Debian stable, and
all other systems (1 desktop, 3 laptops including the Asus EEEpc I
got back in HLUG days all running unstable.
We also have a couple of win7 boxes for my wife as I cannot quite
persuade her to leave the dark side. One of these had win10 but it only
lasted about a week before I reverted back to win 7. I am still
avoiding tablets and the like although I had to get a oldish Galaxy
smartphone so I could set-up my wife's Fitbit watch.
I workout at a local gym 4 times a week and am involved with
volunteering at Montacute ParkRun so keep pretty busy despite being
a near antique
My regards to any other HLuggers you come across, we had some fun times
as a group.
--
John Lewis
Debian & the GeneWeb genealogical data server
20 Feb
20 Feb
3:52 p.m.
New subject: Bitfolk apt-cacher "403 Forbidden file type or location"
** Andy Smith <andy(a)bitfolk.com> [2019-02-20 12:26]:
** end quote
[Andy Smith]
I'm not in a desparate rush, so let me know if you want anything checked
or the full list of errors - they are all the same format, just
different locations.
--
Paul Tansom | Aptanet Ltd. | https://www.aptanet.com/ | 023 9238 0001
Vice Chair, FSB Portsmouth & SE Hampshire Branch | http://www.fsb.org.uk/
=============================================================================
Registered in England | Company No: 4905028 | Registered Office: Ralls House,
Parklands Business Park, Forrest Road, Denmead, Waterlooville, Hants, PO7 6XP
On Wed, Feb 20, 2019 at 09:41:03AM +0000, Paul Tansom
wrote:
<snip>
I've just
been looking to do a do-release-upgrade from Ubuntu 16.04 to
18.04 and come across a raft of error messages along the lines of:
Err http://apt-cacher.lon.bitfolk.com/ubuntu/gb.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu bionic/main
Sources
403 Forbidden file type or location:
/ubuntu/gb.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/dists/bionic/main/source/by-hash/SHA256/0e05b8e93cbdfe5d41306e9d34c893fa23f3087a58c637b882cb0f133375a133
[IP: 2001:ba8:1f1:f079::2 80]
This seems to be a new problem, not the same as above.
I'll try to have a look why the apt-cacher-ng is not accepting that URL.
It does work when pointed directly at the mirror:
$ curl -v
http://gb.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/dists/bionic/main/source/by-hash/SHA256…
f3087a58c637b882cb0f133375a133 >/dev/null
* Hostname was NOT found in DNS cache
% Total % Received % Xferd Average Speed Time Time Time Current
Dload Upload Total Spent Left Speed
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 --:--:-- --:--:-- --:--:-- 0
* Trying 2001:67c:1560:8001::11...
* Connected to gb.archive.ubuntu.com (2001:67c:1560:8001::11) port 80 (#0)
GET
/ubuntu/dists/bionic/main/source/by-hash/SHA256/0e05b8e93cbdfe5d41306e9d34c893fa23f3087a58c637b882cb0f133375a133
HTTP/1.1
User-Agent: curl/7.38.0
Host: gb.archive.ubuntu.com
Accept: */*
< HTTP/1.1 200 OK
< Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2019 12:21:32 GMT
* Server Apache/2.4.18 (Ubuntu) is not blacklisted
< Server: Apache/2.4.18 (Ubuntu)
< Last-Modified: Thu, 26 Apr 2018 17:43:25 GMT
< ETag: "ca77c-56ac3eca5a940"
< Accept-Ranges: bytes
< Content-Length: 829308
<
{ [data not shown]
100 809k 100 809k 0 0 16.1M 0 --:--:-- --:--:-- --:--:-- 19.2M
* Connection #0 to host gb.archive.ubuntu.com left intact
In the mean time if it is causing you a problem with your
do-release-upgrade my best suggestion is to remove the first
"apt-cacher.lon.bitfolk.com/ubuntu/" out of every URL in your
/etc/apt/sources.list, "sudo apt update" and try again.
4:07 p.m.
New subject: Bitfolk apt-cacher "403 Forbidden file type or location"
Hi Paul,
On Wed, Feb 20, 2019 at 03:52:57PM +0000, Paul Tansom wrote:
** Andy Smith <andy(a)bitfolk.com> [2019-02-20
12:26]:
> On Wed, Feb 20, 2019 at 09:41:03AM +0000, Paul Tansom wrote:
> > Err http://apt-cacher.lon.bitfolk.com/ubuntu/gb.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu
bionic/main Sources
> > 403 Forbidden file type or location:
/ubuntu/gb.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/dists/bionic/main/source/by-hash/SHA256/0e05b8e93cbdfe5d41306e9d34c893fa23f3087a58c637b882cb0f133375a133
[IP: 2001:ba8:1f1:f079::2 80]
Seems to be this:
https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=819852
i.e. it's a new layout of apt repository that the version of
apt-cacher-ng I'm currently running doesn't know about.
BitFolk's apt-cacher-ng servers are currently running jessie (oldstable)
and I don't want to rush into upgrading them just to fix this. It seems
that all the fix is though, is to add the rule given by Colin in that
bug report to the defalt set of rules that are compiled in. So by me
just adding the rule to the config should allow this to work now.
I tested with curl and it seems to work now. Could you try again please
Paul?
Cheers,
Andy
--
https://bitfolk.com/ -- No-nonsense VPS hosting
5:32 p.m.
New subject: Bitfolk apt-cacher "403 Forbidden file type or location"
** Andy Smith <andy(a)bitfolk.com> [2019-02-20 16:08]:
On Wed, Feb 20, 2019 at 03:52:57PM +0000, Paul Tansom
wrote:
** end quote [Andy Smith]
Yes, that looks good. I aborted the upgrade as I'm not in a position to
complete at the moment, but there were no errors this time so it looks to be
fixed - thanks.
--
Paul Tansom | Aptanet Ltd. | https://www.aptanet.com/ | 023 9238 0001
Vice Chair, FSB Portsmouth & SE Hampshire Branch | http://www.fsb.org.uk/
=============================================================================
Registered in England | Company No: 4905028 | Registered Office: Ralls House,
Parklands Business Park, Forrest Road, Denmead, Waterlooville, Hants, PO7 6XP
** Andy Smith <andy(a)bitfolk.com>
[2019-02-20 12:26]:
> On Wed, Feb 20, 2019 at 09:41:03AM +0000, Paul Tansom wrote:
> > Err http://apt-cacher.lon.bitfolk.com/ubuntu/gb.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu
bionic/main Sources
> > 403 Forbidden file type or location:
/ubuntu/gb.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/dists/bionic/main/source/by-hash/SHA256/0e05b8e93cbdfe5d41306e9d34c893fa23f3087a58c637b882cb0f133375a133
[IP: 2001:ba8:1f1:f079::2 80]
Seems to be this:
https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=819852
i.e. it's a new layout of apt repository that the version of
apt-cacher-ng I'm currently running doesn't know about.
BitFolk's apt-cacher-ng servers are currently running jessie (oldstable)
and I don't want to rush into upgrading them just to fix this. It seems
that all the fix is though, is to add the rule given by Colin in that
bug report to the defalt set of rules that are compiled in. So by me
just adding the rule to the config should allow this to work now.
I tested with curl and it seems to work now. Could you try again please
Paul?
1888
days inactive
1889
days old
7 comments
3 participants
participants (3)
-
Andy Smith -
john lewis -
Paul Tansom