On Thu, 2005-01-27 at 09:36 -0500, Jeff Johnson wrote:
Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>How comes, FE/fedora.us is able to maintain it?
>I know apt's code is ... ... leaves a lot to be desired, but it doesn't
>require that much effort to maintain the package.
Also not true. The guy who maintained apt-rpm chose to write smartpm
I know. If you're so convinced about smartrpm, why don't you
into FC and consider to abandon up2date and yum, rsp. to adopt
smartrpm's resolver into rpm, rsp. to change yum to use that?
That sez' a whole lot about the maintainability of the apt code
No disagreement ... as I wrote above ... leaves a lot to be desired.
>>>For example instead of adding yum and keeping up2date, RH
>>>tried to help apt. - IMO, this is all politics and not at all
>>IMO you don't know what you're talking about.
>I guess, I do ... I spent way too much time with rpmlib and apt.
Yes, I tried it for a few hours, a couple of days ago.
As I already wrote some days ago, I am not (yet) convinced, at least I
could not get familiar with it - Too much black magic involved.
May-be I should give it another try and dig a little deeper.
Best damn depsolver that I've ever seen, does all the
stuff that apt does (and yum/up2date do not, at least not yet, like
Does smartrpm have equivalents to
These are the features I like about apt and which make apt interesting
Another feature I am missing in both apt and yum is a usable
apt-get has "-d" but insists on its "package name mangling",
doesn't support it all, I don't know about smartrpm.
without the C++ baggage and the Debian Borg politics.
But, by all means, if *you* like apt, then *you* should use apt. Use
It might surprise you: That's what I am doing ;-)