yum versus apt

[Craig White]

On Sat, 2007-11-10 at 15:17 -0700, JT Moree wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> Craig White wrote:
> > apt (at least apt on rpm based systems) was rendered moot because it
> > does not have the ability to handle architectures.
> 
> apt on rpm is a port from debian and does things it's own way to deal
> with rpm's deficiencies.  So yes, apt on an rpm distro is suboptimal but
> that's part of my point about yum.  rpm is to blame for many of its
> problems.
> 
> > there are yum plugins such as the download plugin that permits download
> > but not install.
> 
> cool.  Where can I get this plugin?  In particular for Centos 5.  If I
> go to install later is it going to download again? (Hey, just asking. :] )
----
yum install yum-utils
man yumdownloader

Yum might be the biggest piece of crap that exists on Linux until you
start thinking about the shortcomings of all of the other package
management utilities and then you find out that there are add-ons,
plugins, etc. that extend features because some people have filled in
the voids where they see them.
----
> 
> > rpm is slow but it's getting better.
> 
> Sure and so is everything else (apt included--not apt on rpm).  I'll
> admit that yum/rpm is better than nothing.  But it's still not well
> designed and performs poorly compared to apt/dpkg--which is what the
> first post was asking for.
----
yeah well, I also use KDE and emacs so it's apparent that I am doomed to
a torturous afterlife.

what I can say that in the 10 years I've been using various redhat rpm
systems, I've never had to bail a system because the package db was
blown...perhaps further proof of ignorance is bliss.

Craig