I was wondering why fedora has choosen yum over apt-get

[Ralf Corsepius]

On Tue, 2004-02-10 at 22:01, Warren Togami wrote:
> Kristof Vansant wrote:
> > k but I still don't understand why with yum everything goes slower then with
> > apt-get.
> > Has apt-get better mirror support or something?
> 
> yum actually has better mirror and fail-over support than apt today.
Probably true with yum > 2.0.4.

FC1's yum still lacks a download-only option.

> > My friend has a big apt-get sources list and yum list. Apt-get had his
> > sources list in 2 minutes. Yum was still loading header files after half an
> > hour.
> 
> Could be DNS related issues.
One possibility. 

Other reasons
* The sizes: The over-all size of a yum headers/ directory is larger
than the size of apt's pkglists etc.
* Connectivity/Reachability of server: When downloading a headers/
directory (or many files from it), yum uses many connections, apt uses
few connections.

> > I can understand his frustration. What's the cause in this big speed
> > difference?
> > 

> 3) Concern that apt is redundant to the other clients, and maintaining 
> it would be cost/time prohibitive.
I don't understand, both apt and yum repositories can be generated as
part of the same automated process. The time consuming part is writing
the rpms/rpm.specs.

> Aside from the speed advantages, I personally see apt as my personal 
> favorite for several other reasons:
So do I.

(I still haven't figured out yum's counterpart of apt-get source
<package> and apt-get build-dep <package> :-) )

Ralf