Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On Thu, 2005-01-27 at 08:52 -0500, seth vidal wrote:
RH has the ability to change this at any time.
ability? yes. willingness? no.
It is not - RH has had no problems in adding yum support and has no
problem in adding and removing other packages at any time at RH's free
will.
Do you know why they had no issue adding yum support? B/c it could be covered internally. If it broke and I wasn't around to fix it - they could take care of it.
100+ lines of C++ they were not interested in maintaining.
How comes, FE/fedora.us is able to maintain it?
I know apt's code is ... ... leaves a lot to be desired, but it doesn't
require that much effort to maintain the package.
Also not true. The guy who maintained apt-rpm chose to write smartpm instead.
That sez' a whole lot about the maintainability of the apt code base. There are many
known legacy issues with C++ as well, can't be helped, I'm certainly not complaining.
Or perhaps a whole lot about the politics of package management and vendors.
One never knows, and one cannot tell. <shrug>
I guess, I do ... I spent way too much time with rpmlib and apt.For example instead of adding yum and keeping up2date, RH could haveIMO you don't know what you're talking about.
tried to help apt. - IMO, this is all politics and not at all
technically motivated.
Tried smartpm? Best damn depsolver that I've ever seen, does all the (imho) useful
stuff that apt does (and yum/up2date do not, at least not yet, like back-tracking),
without the C++ baggage and the Debian Borg politics.
But, by all means, if *you* like apt, then *you* should use apt. Use what works.
73 de Jeff
