yum vs. apt

[Phil Schaffner]

On Tue, 2004-11-23 at 09:45 -0600, Axel Thimm wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 23, 2004 at 09:52:16AM -0500, Phil Schaffner wrote:
> > On Tue, 2004-11-23 at 09:24 -0500, Mark Bradford wrote:
> > > I have been using apt for installs and updating/upgrading, but am 
> > > noticing most of the conversation here seems to favor yum.  Is there any
> 
> > > significant difference between the two, or are there any issues or 
> > > conflicts in using both?
> > 
> > FC3 repositories seem to be dropping apt support,
> 
> Which ones do such things! ???

OK - ya' got me.  Should have said many FC3 mirrors do not have apt
support.  ATrpms, freshrpms, ... repos certainly do.

> 
> > and apt does not handle multi-arch (i386 vs x86_64, PPC, ...).
> 
> True :(
> 
> > Has been some talk of an apt version able to use the new yum
> > repository meta-data, but so far seems to be vaporware.
> 
> Also true, but less painful than the (lack of the) multilib support.
> 
> > I've pretty much dropped apt in favor of yum, but apt/synaptic still
> > seem viable for FC2 and earlier.
> 
> It's also available for FC3, as well as yum/yum20 for FC2 and earlier.

I do have apt loaded for FC3 and sometimes find it handles situations
better than yum, or vice versa.  Both can be useful tools.

Phil