Why don't you guys like synaptic?

[Kim Lux]

That was my point: synaptic and apt use rpms.  So if I've got a
dependency issue with apt and synaptic, I'll be having a dependency
issue with rpms as well.  I'd much, much rather use synaptic to take
care of those issues than doing it manually with rpms.

I've had to install packages in the past that have needed 6 to twelve
other packages.  (mplayer, xine, kdebase-devel of a new version, etc.)
When synaptic can do the install it is much, much easier than manually
doing it with rpms. 

I wasn't aware that synaptic was a single arch package.  I don't think
users care if synaptic isn't written in python.  They just want a system
to easily install packages with.  I'd say it works pretty darn good
80-95% of the time. 



On Thu, 2004-11-11 at 11:32 -0500, William Hooper wrote:
> Kim Lux said:
> > I love synaptic.  I don't understand why FC ships without it.  It might
> > have a few issues with dependencies, but so does rpm !
> [snip]
> 
> It seems to have to be mentioned every time, but apt isn't a packaging
> system.  Apt on Fedora uses RPM to install the packages.  The issues with
> apt aren't dependencies, it is the lack of multi-arch support and the fact
> that yum is written in python (which is the Red Hat preferred language).
> 
> -- 
> William Hooper
> 
-- 
Kim Lux (Mr.)  Diesel Research Inc