yum versus apt

[JT Moree]

-----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. :] )

> 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.

- --
JT Morée
PC Xperience, Inc.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFHNi4R1JwGi/ukQqERAuKEAKCy18uxuiqlO+l0yFOi+Cu58E4wxwCdG7LA
lTNMuZy694dOFwvWcucxsXc=
=O60g
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
MailScanner thanks transtec Computers for their support.