On Mon, Dec 06, 2004 at 11:27:29PM -0500, Marvin Dickens wrote: > > > Your rhgb issues will most certainly be unrelated to both lm_sensors > > > and ATrpms. > > I question this logic: > > Apt does things differently as compared to yum. For example: > > 1.) apt checks *your* rpm database and not a repo. > 2.) apt will install using: rpm -i --nodeps --noorder For one this is not true in 2004, these are ancient ways of how apt worked, maybe even before fedora core was conceived. apt uses rpmlib transactions, and rpm gets to do the checking and the ordering (but you can configure apt to behave otherwise). Also apt most certainly checks the repo and if something is at fault it is discared from the transaction, but the remaining transaction is preformed. I wish yum gets this feature soon. But at any rate this has nothing to do with rhgb, ATrpms or lm_sensors. What makes you think so? :) > Either of the above create a situation that can totally hoark a system. > I can name two or three more... > > There are also other differences between the apt and yum, but these are > two major ones that come to mind. The only major issue with apt is that is does not support multilib (e.g. x86_64). What other issues are you thinking of? > I admit that yum does not have the plethoria of packages that apt > has, but yum is much more dependable and stable. Both are very good tools, and yum should access as many packages as apt nowadays. Both tools have bugs, and they both get fixed when reported. Currently other than the multilib issues there are no major concerns in both of them. > Besides, I don't mind compiling what I cannot get as a package in > yum (Plus, there are some things that I insist on installing from > source - ie anything involving security such as pgp as well as > development tools and of course, the kernel. -- Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
Attachment:
pgpXh9xJptDFP.pgp
Description: PGP signature
