On Tue, 2004-11-23 at 14:27 +0000, Paul Howarth wrote: > apt is more versatile but yum comes as standard with Fedora and is hence more > widely used. There's also up2date of course, which also comes as standard with > Fedora. I always thought of apt as an alternative (to RPM) way of packaging and delivering software. I have never used it myself but I understand there is some apt-rpm middleware nowadays. I suppose Fedora apt repos use RPMs? Anything else would be a mess. > It's just a matter of personal preference really. For some reason I adopted the standard, when it changed from being up2date to being yum. I'm not completely happy with yum, however. First, it has the worst downloader of all tools I've tried so far - it doesn't handle slow or shaky connections at all well and apparently can't even resume aborted downloads! This frequently drives my nuts when trying to update things like kernel or OOo. In those cases I have to resort to wget to fetch the big packages. My closest mirrors are reasonably fast (over 6Mbps download speed), but very often somewhere 50-80% into a big download they just stop sending, and no amount of waiting is going to make the download continue. This happens with wget, too, but wget simply times out, reconnects and resumes. Second, yum gets its knickers in a twist every once in a while when dependencies get too complicated. Manual rpm (without --force or --nodeps, mind you!) is then required. This is a small gripe in comparison, since it doesn't happen very often. I'm considering going back to Gerald Teschl's autoupdate (http://www.mat.univie.ac.at/~gerald/ftp/autoupdate/), which has always worked great for me and doesn't need any particular support from the repository. It builds and maintains a package and dependencies DB of its own. Alternatively, if someone could suggest a way of using external downloaders with yum, I'd give that a try. Cheers Steffen.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
