On Fri, 2005-04-15 at 21:18 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote: > Ralf Corsepius wrote: > > >On Fri, 2005-04-15 at 19:52 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote: > > > > > >>Ralf Corsepius wrote: > >> > >> > >> > >>>On Fri, 2005-04-15 at 19:06 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>>Mark Haney wrote: > >>>> > >>>> > > > > > > > >>>He just has released a new release, a couple of weeks ago. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>I had that impression through previous discussions related to it in > >>Fedora devel list and the fact the issues like multilib is/was there for > >>a long time > >> > >> > >Yes, apt still is not able to handle RH multilibs. > > > I dont think multi libs is specific to RH. can you clarify that > specifically? As I have been told, apt is able to handle Debian and SuSE multilibs. Unfortunately, I don't know where the actual difference between these distros' and RH/FC's multilibs are. > >Well, 95% of the issues wrt. upgrading RHL/FC are packaging bugs. These > >affect all upgrading tools, such as up2date, apt, yum, smart and > >anaconda. > > > > > > well if you know of specific issues you could file them against specific > packages Rest assured, I've done so many times before and will do so when encountering them ;-) > >Don't get me wrong, IMO, yum is gradually improving and has evolved to > >acceptable shape as far as "keeping systems up2date" is concerned, but > >it is still at least one magnitude behind apt elsewhere. > > > > It would be fair to allow a chance for the yum developers to respond to > these issues. So a post to the fedora devel or yum lists would be > appropriate Seth knows about them ;-) Ralf
