"apt" to eventaully replace "rpm"?
Chris Jones
jonesc at hep.phy.cam.ac.uk
Sun Nov 25 15:53:48 UTC 2007
> I've used both. I LOVED apt. It was FAST. I mean real fast. I
> actually preferred it to yum. It had a sweet GUI interface, and
> searches were quick. I could use it for for bringing-in packages as
> stated, but it worked well as a local package manager too. It was an
> all-in-one solution.
I'm with you there. APT is much faster than yum. The gui you are
thinking of is probably synaptic, and I agree its probably the best
package manager GUI I've used.
>
> Yum became the Fedora/RedHat standard, as I recall, due to apt not being
> able to differenciate between architectures; i.e., if I wanted to
> install the current *.i686.rpm kernel, apt couldn't distinguish between
> that and a *.i386.rpm kernel. Perhaps I'm wrong, but it was a major
> issue that prevented apt from working under Fedora correctly.
I think this correct - Not only i386/i686 but more importantly multilib
- i.e. having both the 32bit and 64 bit versions of some packages at the
same time. That was some time ago and I do wonder if ubuntu/debian have
not solved this by now - Surely they have a need to do the same thing
over there ?
Also, I think APT doesn't handle multiple mirrors for a single repo as
well as yum, but I might be wrong here.
cheers Chris
More information about the users
mailing list