Re: APT v. YUM

["Bryan J. Smith" <thebs413@earthlink.net>]

On Sun, 2004-11-21 at 14:46, mike808@users.sourceforge.net wrote:
> I especially found this follow up enlightening:
> > http://xrl.us/d3tg (Link to www.redhat.com)

Yeah, I was hoping my post would "draw out the _real_ discussions."
I think APT has been dismissed _far_too_much_ merely because people
associate it with DPKG and not RPM.

By mid-2003, Fedora.US had already and vastly improved APT-RPM over my
prior experiences with FreshRPMS.NET and other repositories.  It wasn't
just the repository itself (of which I find Fedora.US was always better
at), but the actual implementation of APT-RPM plus the RPM specs.  Same
deal versus Ximian/Red Carpet too.

We also already have Synaptic for APT.  I'd like to see an installer
built around the combo.

Also completely agree that the "YUM was written for RPM, APT was ported"
is rather weak.  It's clearly a "not invented here" attitude, because
"front-ends" to package management systems act extremely similar.  If
anything, APT-RPM already leverages what has been learned with DPKG
prior.

Any limitations in APT will be more of a result of RPM versus DPKG.  I
don't know many people who argue that RPM is superior to DPKG when you
remove APT from the equation.  DPKG has a lot of features that match
RPM, and it always seemed to me that RPM has added more features in DPKG
in v4.

> I guess the Fedora folks just couldn't find the courage to pick APT
> to replace the now apparently legacy "rpm".

Remember, APT does _not_ replace RPM, the _back-end_ package manager, it
is a _front-end_ for it.  YUM is the same, a _front-end_.  APT was just
originally built for DPKG, YUM (Yellow Dog Update Manager, a Red Hat
variant for Mac hardware) for RPM.  But it was Connectiva who first
ported APT to RPM.

RPM is _quite_good_ IMHO.  So it's not a "legacy" issue with RPM, RPM
_has_ evolved quite well.  It's merely the APT v. YUM argument _while_
RPM is still used as a back-end.

I like APT because it is not only mature in its DPKG flavor, but it
seemingly has all those attributes in the RPM flavor -- at least once I
switched to Fedora.US' implementation in mid-2003.

> Not the first time politics won out over objective analysis, even in
> Open Source.  I'll take "Not Invented Here" for $200, Alex.

I agree.  I think the pro-YUM started with RPM argument is rather weak. 
We're all talking the _front-end_ manager, regardless of whether or not
DPKG and RPM are the actual _back-ends_.

DPKG and RPM are very much alike in many capabilities, each adding
capabilities in newer versions to match the others.

Don't confuse the "front-end" with the "back-end."  YUM works very
well.  But APT is far more proven and the "not invented here" attitude
is rather non-applicable.





-
To unsubscribe, send email to majordomo@silug.org with
"unsubscribe silug-discuss" in the body.