Where's apt for core 4?
mschwendt.tmp0501.nospam at arcor.de
Wed Jul 27 15:22:03 UTC 2005
On Wed, 27 Jul 2005 17:07:35 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> > Where would be the point in providing and maintaining a separate Apt
> > repository (and additional meta data) if there is no such official
> > repository for Fedora Core and Fedora Extras?
> livna is not connected to FC nor FE :=)
No, but facing limited resources, too.
> > And has anything changed with regard to "ExcludeArch: x86_64 ppc64"
> > and Apt's upstream maintenance?
> No, but ... has anything changed in RH's packaging? apt is able to
> support SuSE's packaging on 64bit platforms:
> see ftp://ftp.gwdg.de/linux/suse/apt
Is that one multi-lib or 64-bit-only?
> Has anything changed in yum not being able to process:
> * yum remove libgcj
> * yum remove eclipse
I've heard about that, but it's not on my personal plate. And I have not
investigated whether it's a packaging mistake, a depsolver mistake, or
what else. If you have reported the misbehaviour as a bug, maybe it just
takes some time until it will be fixed. Or maybe other issues take
> > I never liked Apt and its less user-friendly interface (genbasedir,
> > apt-cache, install -f suggestions and the various invocations).
> That's your personal preference, mine is substantially different.
So what? If there's enough community interest in Apt-RPM, surely there
will be volunteers who take over maintenance of the software (isn't it
even coded in C++ in large parts and not Python?) and primary servers.
First step could be to fix multi-lib support, then add common metadata
support, then build up a network of mirrors and a mirror list.
> Just try:
> yum install eclipse
> yum remove libgcj
> At this point you would appreciate having "apt-get -f"
One word: rpm
More information about the users