Re: yum vs apt-get

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]


On Thu, 2006-07-13 at 08:50 -0400, Matthew Miller wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 13, 2006 at 08:46:02AM -0400, Philippe A. wrote:
> > I would like to know why was yum choosen to be distributed in fedora instead
> > of apt-get. I started with apt-get before knowing yum existed and was
> > actually delivered with my dist. When I gave yum a try, I was disappointed.
> > Its verrry slooow, and it seems not to be doing much more. I've read from
> > kde-redhat maintainer apt-get is no longer developped, but other than that,
> > what are the main differences between the two tools?
> "No longer developed" is a pretty strong reason. Howver, the killer feature
> is that apt-get was at the time unable to deal with multilib systems (i386
> binaries on x86_64). There's actually been some development since then, and
> it does have rudimentary support now.
It has a "supposed to be functional support" now.

> > I don't want to start passionnate debate here. I simply want to understand
> > yum better and the reasons motivating the choice of a tool over another.
> Have you looked at the apt-get source code?
Yes, ....

>  It's a very complicated codebase, and the grafting-in of RPM support
> didn't help that.
Yes, it's pretty dirty and "clutter with Debian centrics".

>  Yum, on the other hand, was designed from scratch in very readable
> Python. This makes it a lot easier to improve, making it a better base
> for going forward.
A matter of perspective: To me, the decision to base a system tool on a
scripted language isn't necessarily clever. Fairly easy to maintain, but
very demanding on resources and on package dependencies and rather
unstable/error-prone at runtime. 

Besides this, yum and apt are "just different", each has advantages and


[Index of Archives]     [Current Fedora Users]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Yosemite News]     [Yosemite Photos]     [KDE Users]     [Fedora Tools]     [Fedora Docs]

  Powered by Linux