[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
