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 -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
