Will apt be in FC3?

Mike Fedyk mfedyk at matchmail.com
Thu Jun 24 20:43:53 UTC 2004


I would like to show my advocacy for apt to be in FC3.  It's definitely 
more advanced than yum, and faster (no, I'm not talking about dependency 
resolution).  To update, you have to download individual package headers 
(and since it's just receiving the header portion of the rpm, it isn't 
compressed), and it downloads them one at a time with no concurrency.

The only advantages I can see for yum are:

  1. it could probably be sped up a lot in the package updates portion 
with a web proxy (if you have multiple machines, only the first one 
would have the slowdown)

  2. once you get the first update, you only need to download updates 
for new or updated packages.

  3. you don't need to create the indexes for yum that apt requires on 
the server side

  4. It's 1/4 the size of apt

But without compressed indexes, you'll get everyone and their cousin 
complaining about how fscking slow yum is to get the package headers.
So you add concurrent downloads (there goes part of advantage 4), but 
the mirror admins complain because you're hitting their servers too hard 
just to get the headers.

You'll need to create an index for yum.  So there goes advantage 1, 2 
and 3.  Now the mirror admins are happier.

But if you only use the index for the first update, you can get back 
advantage 2.

What do we end up with in the end?  A lot of development spent on yum to 
put what's already in apt in yum, and with competing index formats.

Apt has repository priorities, and AFAICT, yum does not.

So "Will apt be in FC3"?

More information about the fedora-list mailing list