On Wed, 27 Jul 2005 17:07:35 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > > Where would be the point in providing and maintaining a separate Apt > > repository (and additional meta data) if there is no such official > > repository for Fedora Core and Fedora Extras? > > livna is not connected to FC nor FE :=) No, but facing limited resources, too. > > And has anything changed with regard to "ExcludeArch: x86_64 ppc64" > > and Apt's upstream maintenance? > > No, but ... has anything changed in RH's packaging? apt is able to > support SuSE's packaging on 64bit platforms: > see ftp://ftp.gwdg.de/linux/suse/apt Is that one multi-lib or 64-bit-only? > Has anything changed in yum not being able to process: > * yum remove libgcj > * yum remove eclipse I've heard about that, but it's not on my personal plate. And I have not investigated whether it's a packaging mistake, a depsolver mistake, or what else. If you have reported the misbehaviour as a bug, maybe it just takes some time until it will be fixed. Or maybe other issues take priority. > > I never liked Apt and its less user-friendly interface (genbasedir, > > apt-cache, install -f suggestions and the various invocations). > > That's your personal preference, mine is substantially different. So what? If there's enough community interest in Apt-RPM, surely there will be volunteers who take over maintenance of the software (isn't it even coded in C++ in large parts and not Python?) and primary servers. First step could be to fix multi-lib support, then add common metadata support, then build up a network of mirrors and a mirror list. > Just try: > yum install eclipse > yum remove libgcj > > At this point you would appreciate having "apt-get -f" One word: rpm
