On Sun, 2005-08-21 at 19:16 +0200, Toralf Lund wrote: > Paul Howarth wrote: > > >On Sun, 2005-08-21 at 11:25 +0200, Toralf Lund wrote: > > > > > >>Richard Emberson wrote: > >> > >> > >> > >>>In the past I've used synaptic (which uses apt). Now that I've just > >>>upgraded to > >>>FC4, the question I've got is should I switch over to use the Yum > >>>Extender? > >>>Will packages available to yum users also be available to apt users? > >>>Does yumex assure that all dependencies are satisfied before doing an > >>>install? > >>> > >>> > >>Haven't tried yumex (yet), just plain yum, but that does make sure > >>everything is right wrt. dependencies etc. > >> > >> > > > >Yes; in fact yum doesn't have provide options to break dependencies, > >unlike rpm itself. > > > > > > > >>Apart from that, the way I understand it, apt and yum now use exactly > >>the same "repository" data, i.e. a yum-enabled distribution directory > >>will also work with apt and vice versa. If it uses the current > >>repository format, that is; there used to be different, incompatible > >>formats, then both tools were updated to support a common standard. > >> > >> > > > >I've not heard of any version of apt that can use repo data from any > >version of yum. > > > >Up2date though, can handle old and new yum metadata plus apt metadata. > >Perhaps that's what you were thinking of? > > > > > No, I'm thinking of > > http://linux.duke.edu/projects/metadata/ > > As you can see, what you call "new yum metadata" is not really that; > it's more like "new common metadata", i.e. a format that supposed to be > common to yum, apt, up2date and some others, too. > > Now, I assumed that the new format is supported in current apt clients > as well as yum, but I haven't actually tested. This is the metadata format supported by yum in FC3 and FC4, and by up2date in FC4. I didn't know that apt was also a target of this format; I'll be interested to hear if there's a version of apt for rpm that does support it. Paul. -- Paul Howarth <paul@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
