On Thu, 2005-01-27 at 09:36 -0500, Jeff Johnson wrote: > Ralf Corsepius wrote: > > >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. I know. If you're so convinced about smartrpm, why don't you include it into FC and consider to abandon up2date and yum, rsp. to adopt smartrpm's resolver into rpm, rsp. to change yum to use that? > That sez' a whole lot about the maintainability of the apt code base. No disagreement ... as I wrote above ... leaves a lot to be desired. > >>>For example instead of adding yum and keeping up2date, RH could have > >>>tried to help apt. - IMO, this is all politics and not at all > >>>technically motivated. > >>> > >>> > >>IMO you don't know what you're talking about. > >> > >> > >I guess, I do ... I spent way too much time with rpmlib and apt. > > > > > > Tried smartpm? Yes, I tried it for a few hours, a couple of days ago. As I already wrote some days ago, I am not (yet) convinced, at least I could not get familiar with it - Too much black magic involved. May-be I should give it another try and dig a little deeper. > 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), Does smartrpm have equivalents to apt-get source apt-get build-dep These are the features I like about apt and which make apt interesting to me. Another feature I am missing in both apt and yum is a usable --download-only operation. apt-get has "-d" but insists on its "package name mangling", (FC3's) yum doesn't support it all, I don't know about smartrpm. > 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. It might surprise you: That's what I am doing ;-) Ralf
