Ralf Corsepius wrote:
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 include it
into FC and consider to abandon up2date and yum, rsp. to adopt
smartrpm's resolver into rpm, rsp. to change yum to use that?
What do you think I am, the FC God or something? I do think smartpm is
a better biscuit, and I have told all the appropriate people.
What gets included in FC is an arduous and complicated negotiation, and
is usually quite controversial, both with Red Hat and within Fedora.
I trust that the right decision will be made in the end.
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
could not get familiar with it - Too much black magic involved.
May-be I should give it another try and dig a little deeper.
It's early yet for smartpm, yes. Use what works.
> 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.
No clue, I (blush) do not use apt, and I'm having a good day when the
on my box happens to be sufficiently functional and populated that yum does
not get too confused.
I'm pretty sure Gustavo would be willing to implement new and useful
73 de Jeff