"apt" to eventaully replace "rpm"?
akonstam at sbcglobal.net
Sun Nov 25 22:02:04 UTC 2007
On Sun, 2007-11-25 at 15:53 +0000, Chris Jones wrote:
> > I've used both. I LOVED apt. It was FAST. I mean real fast. I
> > actually preferred it to yum. It had a sweet GUI interface, and
> > searches were quick. I could use it for for bringing-in packages as
> > stated, but it worked well as a local package manager too. It was an
> > all-in-one solution.
> I'm with you there. APT is much faster than yum. The gui you are
> thinking of is probably synaptic, and I agree its probably the best
> package manager GUI I've used.
Now I think we are confusing apt with apt-get. Synaptic is the apt-get
gui in Ubuntu, It is all confusing, to me at least.
> > Yum became the Fedora/RedHat standard, as I recall, due to apt not being
> > able to differenciate between architectures; i.e., if I wanted to
> > install the current *.i686.rpm kernel, apt couldn't distinguish between
> > that and a *.i386.rpm kernel. Perhaps I'm wrong, but it was a major
> > issue that prevented apt from working under Fedora correctly.
> I think this correct - Not only i386/i686 but more importantly multilib
> - i.e. having both the 32bit and 64 bit versions of some packages at the
> same time. That was some time ago and I do wonder if ubuntu/debian have
> not solved this by now - Surely they have a need to do the same thing
> over there ?
> Also, I think APT doesn't handle multiple mirrors for a single repo as
> well as yum, but I might be wrong here.
> cheers Chris
It is easy when we are in prosperity to give advice to the afflicted. --
Aaron Konstam telephone: (210) 656-0355 e-mail: akonstam at sbcglobal.net
More information about the fedora-list