On Fri, 2006-09-22 at 07:05 -0400, Jim Cornette wrote: > Rahul wrote: > > Apt wasn't chosen at that time because it was basically unmaintained and > > not multi lib capable. Now those reasons are not a roadblock and it is > > available in Fedora Extras. > I might try apt just to see its performance compared to yum. Performance-wise apt has somewhat regressed in comparison to older versions and to the deb-based versions, because apt could not avoid to adopt the metadata repo-format (aka "yum-repos"), because RH and Fedora do not support apt's native repository format. Unfortunately the metadata repository format is not a design to make it an ideal choice for apt. It definitely introduces a lot of ballast to apt and causes apt to regress on network traffic, memory demand and speed. Apt still has advantages wrt. stability, reliability and portability. Apart of this, apt and yum's behavior and features are still sufficiently different, both with pros and cons, to justify their (co-) existence. > I > preferred yum over apt back when both were used to pull in packages > outside of RedHat, before the Fedora/Redhat merge back in RH10 (Fedora > Core 1) timeframe. I use both, because both have pros and cons ;) Ralf
