On Tue, 2004-11-23 at 09:52 -0500, Phil Schaffner wrote: > On Tue, 2004-11-23 at 09:24 -0500, Mark Bradford wrote: > > I have been using apt for installs and updating/upgrading, but am > > noticing most of the conversation here seems to favor yum. Is there any > > significant difference between the two, or are there any issues or > > conflicts in using both? > > FC3 repositories seem to be dropping apt support, FC == RH, never has supported apt. Apt had been supported through Fedora.US and other 3rd party repositories. > and apt does not > handle multi-arch (i386 vs x86_64, True. > PPC, ...). I am not sure, but I doubt this. > I've pretty much dropped apt in favor of yum, > but apt/synaptic still seem viable for FC2 and earlier. I've pretty much dropped yum in favor of apt, because yum doesn't handle many of the situations, apt can handle (apt-get source, apt-get build- dep, preferences). Furthermore, yum is a script-based application suffering from the same deficiencies all script-based applications suffer from. Most of the upgrade/update problems with yum having been reported on this list (apart of user's having corrupted their yum configuration), probably originate from this cause. Ralf
