[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: Will apt be in FC3?



[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



[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]