yum vs. apt

[Ralf Corsepius]

On Tue, 2004-11-23 at 09:52 -0500, Phil Schaffner wrote:
> On Tue, 2004-11-23 at 09:24 -0500, Mark Bradford wrote:
> > I have been using apt for installs and updating/upgrading, but am 
> > noticing most of the conversation here seems to favor yum.  Is there any 
> > significant difference between the two, or are there any issues or 
> > conflicts in using both?
> 
> FC3 repositories seem to be dropping apt support,
FC == RH, never has supported apt.

Apt had been supported through Fedora.US and other 3rd party
repositories.

>  and apt does not
> handle multi-arch (i386 vs x86_64,
True.

>  PPC, ...).
I am not sure, but I doubt this.

> I've pretty much dropped apt in favor of yum,
> but apt/synaptic still seem viable for FC2 and earlier.
I've pretty much dropped yum in favor of apt, because yum doesn't handle
many of the situations, apt can handle (apt-get source, apt-get build-
dep, preferences).

Furthermore, yum is a script-based application suffering from the same
deficiencies all script-based applications suffer from. Most of the
upgrade/update problems with yum having been reported on this list
(apart of user's having corrupted their yum configuration), probably
originate from this cause.

Ralf