On Sun, 2007-11-25 at 15:53 +0000, Chris Jones wrote: > > I've used both. I LOVED apt. It was FAST. I mean real fast. I > > actually preferred it to yum. It had a sweet GUI interface, and > > searches were quick. I could use it for for bringing-in packages as > > stated, but it worked well as a local package manager too. It was an > > all-in-one solution. > > I'm with you there. APT is much faster than yum. The gui you are > thinking of is probably synaptic, and I agree its probably the best > package manager GUI I've used. Now I think we are confusing apt with apt-get. Synaptic is the apt-get gui in Ubuntu, It is all confusing, to me at least. > > > > > Yum became the Fedora/RedHat standard, as I recall, due to apt not being > > able to differenciate between architectures; i.e., if I wanted to > > install the current *.i686.rpm kernel, apt couldn't distinguish between > > that and a *.i386.rpm kernel. Perhaps I'm wrong, but it was a major > > issue that prevented apt from working under Fedora correctly. > > I think this correct - Not only i386/i686 but more importantly multilib > - i.e. having both the 32bit and 64 bit versions of some packages at the > same time. That was some time ago and I do wonder if ubuntu/debian have > not solved this by now - Surely they have a need to do the same thing > over there ? > > Also, I think APT doesn't handle multiple mirrors for a single repo as > well as yum, but I might be wrong here. > > cheers Chris > -- ======================================================================= It is easy when we are in prosperity to give advice to the afflicted. -- Aeschylus ======================================================================= Aaron Konstam telephone: (210) 656-0355 e-mail: akonstam@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
