redhat abe

[Jeff Johnson]

Ralf Corsepius wrote:

>On Thu, 2005-01-27 at 08:52 -0500, seth vidal wrote:
>  
>
>>>RH has the ability to change this at any time.
>>>      
>>>
>>ability? yes. willingness? no.
>>
>>
>>    
>>
>>>It is not - RH has had no problems in adding yum support and has no
>>>problem in adding and removing other packages at any time at RH's free
>>>will.
>>>      
>>>
>>Do you know why they had no issue adding yum support? B/c it could be
>>covered internally. If it broke and I wasn't around to fix it - they
>>could take care of it.
>>
>>100+ lines of C++ they were not interested in maintaining.
>>    
>>
>How comes, FE/fedora.us is able to maintain it?
>
>I know apt's code is ... ... leaves a lot to be desired, but it doesn't
>require that much effort to maintain the package.
>  
>

Also not true. The guy who maintained apt-rpm chose to write smartpm 
instead.

That sez' a whole lot about the maintainability of the apt code base. 
There are many
known legacy issues with C++ as well, can't be helped, I'm certainly not 
complaining.

Or perhaps a whole lot about the politics of package management and vendors.

One never knows, and one cannot tell. <shrug>

>  
>
>>>For example instead of adding yum and keeping up2date, RH could have
>>>tried to help apt. - IMO, this is all politics and not at all
>>>technically motivated.
>>>      
>>>
>>IMO you don't know what you're talking about.
>>    
>>
>I guess, I do ... I spent way too much time with rpmlib and apt.
>  
>

Tried smartpm? Best damn depsolver that I've ever seen, does all the 
(imho) useful
stuff that apt does (and yum/up2date do not, at least not yet, like 
back-tracking),
without the C++ baggage and the Debian Borg politics.

But, by all means, if *you* like apt, then *you* should use apt. Use 
what works.

73 de Jeff