On Thu, 2005-01-27 at 08:16 -0500, Jeff Johnson wrote:
Thomas Vander Stichele wrote:
>c) nothing more was ever offered as negative feedback on mach
>uses apt" (a fact that is easily changeable, obviously);
Well clearly, having mach rely on a package that is not included in any Red
RH has the ability to change this at any time.
presents certain logistical difficulties.
That should be obvious.
It is not - RH has had no problems in adding yum support
and has no
problem in adding and removing other packages at any time at RH's free
For example instead of adding yum and keeping up2date, RH could have
tried to help apt. - IMO, this is all politics and not at all
And, FWIW, I have suggested repeatedly that apt be added to FC
internally to Red Hat
in spite of the cost of attempting to maintain Yet Another Depsolver.
The previous line
basically summarizes the majority of the feedback that I have heard:
FC needs fewer depsolvers that work more reliably.
Isn't the solution
obvious? Implement one unified depsolver into rpm
which behaves exactly as you envision it, instead.