On Tue, 2004-11-23 at 09:45 -0600, Axel Thimm wrote: > On Tue, Nov 23, 2004 at 09:52:16AM -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, > > Which ones do such things! ??? OK - ya' got me. Should have said many FC3 mirrors do not have apt support. ATrpms, freshrpms, ... repos certainly do. > > > and apt does not handle multi-arch (i386 vs x86_64, PPC, ...). > > True :( > > > Has been some talk of an apt version able to use the new yum > > repository meta-data, but so far seems to be vaporware. > > Also true, but less painful than the (lack of the) multilib support. > > > I've pretty much dropped apt in favor of yum, but apt/synaptic still > > seem viable for FC2 and earlier. > > It's also available for FC3, as well as yum/yum20 for FC2 and earlier. I do have apt loaded for FC3 and sometimes find it handles situations better than yum, or vice versa. Both can be useful tools. Phil
