apt vs yum

[Justin Georgeson]

Michael Clewley wrote:
> On 15, Justin Georgeson wrote:
> 
>>Jesse Keating wrote:
>>
>>>On Wednesday 15 October 2003 13:12, Justin Georgeson wrote:
>>>
>>>>what dirty tricks? APT should do nothing more than search
>>>>repositories for the specified package, check dependencies, download
>>>>candidates, and call rpm.
> 
> 
> That about sums it up.
> 
> 
>>>It used to call rpm with --force and --nodeps.  Hopefully it doesn't do 
>>>that anymore.
> 
> 
> Apt is adamant about package dependencies. One dependency not met, it
> suggests a "fix". Telling it to fix (via apt-get install -f), will then
> suggest any and all packages that are depended on to be installed.
> 
> 
>>I think it is still doing something like that then, as the RawHide RPMs 
>>aren't necessarily signed, and I don't think I've seen it complain about 
>>that.
> 
> 
> You might be ignoring the signatures explicitly. Check your apt.conf.

It's not. Someone noted that the apt package from fedora.us has 
signature checking enabled, i've since switched to the apt package from 
freshrpms.net and haven't had any trouble

> I find it odd to hear that you (Justin) found yum to be slower than apt.
> It's my understanding that apt (for rpm) suffers from far more bloat and
> frankly sucks the life out of my old pentiums. But it's so damn
> effective and convenient, that I admin shy of two dozen redhat servers
> with it. Again, I've not tried YUM..

I don't recall saying that yum is slower.