On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 20:00, Alexandre Oliva <aoliva@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Apr 12, 2004, Russell Coker <russell@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > However I expect apt to be phased out, so it's probably not worth > >> > doing. > >> > >> I don't see it going away anytime soon. > > > > So we will have both apt and yum doing much the same thing? > > We (Fedora Core) don't ship apt (ATM?), but there's no reason to make > the life of those who prefer apt over yum or up2date more difficult. > Especially after all of them switch to a common repository format. > And even more so considering that we don't have a GUI front-end for > Extras similar to synaptics (that I've never used myself, FWIW) > > It's about choice. It's not like we should decide whether our users > should use Gnome or KDE; GNU Emacs or XEmacs or vim or whatever. True, we want to give choice. But when deciding how much work we want to spend on supporting one particular choice we have to think about how much use it's going to get. I was under the impression that yum was the preferred choice as apt was designed to work best for Debian packages with separate install and configure stages etc. -- http://www.coker.com.au/selinux/ My NSA Security Enhanced Linux packages http://www.coker.com.au/bonnie++/ Bonnie++ hard drive benchmark http://www.coker.com.au/postal/ Postal SMTP/POP benchmark http://www.coker.com.au/~russell/ My home page
