Will apt be in FC3?

[Mike Fedyk]

[Brought here from fedora-list]

David L Norris wrote:
> On Thu, 2004-06-24 at 16:10 -0500, Satish Balay wrote:
> 
>>On Thu, 24 Jun 2004, Mike Fedyk wrote:
>><snip yum flamebits>
>>
>>>So "Will apt be in FC3"?
> 
> 
> It's in Fedora Extras right now for all systems.  Everything available
> via YUM is also available via APT.  "yum install apt"
> 
> 
>>Sounds like a question for fedora-devel list. I would think this would
>>involve :
>>
>>- adding apt.rpm to the list of packages
>>- also packing/regenerationg 'repository-database' for apt on all CDs
>>   and mirrors.
> 
> 
>   - fixing the problems with APT.  No multilib, poor failover, etc.

True.  I have experienced the poor failover with apt in Debian itself 
with a bad mirror.

Though, the list of apt's shortcomings looks shorter than yum's.

With yum:

o The headers are just too big (seth vidal):
http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2004-February/msg00507.html

o Removal of entire trees with dependencies (but may be added soon)
http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2004-February/msg00529.html

o uses much more memory than apt
http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2004-February/msg00501.html

Once apt and yum use the same meta-data, there's not much reason not to 
put it in FC# now is there?

> 
> Search through the fedora-devel-list archives.  There are dozens of
> messages discussing why YUM is used rather than APT.
> 
> Summary: Yes, YUM isn't perfect.  No, APT can't replace it feature-for-
> feature.  Can APT be supported in addition to YUM?  It has always been
> in Fedora Extras.

It looks like there are two features missing in apt, and more than 5 
(more than I listed above) for yum.  The only reason I can see to 
continue with yum, is to get apt4rpm to use the new meta-data format by 
following the others.

Mike