[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: redhat abe



On Fri, 28 Jan 2005, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On Fri, 2005-01-28 at 11:58 +0200, Panu Matilainen wrote:

new repodata format)
IMO, this is more a matter of politics and willingness, but a technical
requirement.

Technically, I don't see any need for apt to adopt yum's repodata
format. Politically, this requirement is introduced by RH not wanting to
add apt-repositories and fedora.us apparently being unable to set up
complete repositories. If apt-repositories are cleverly set up, the
additional overhead they introduce in addition to the original files
becomes more or less negligible.

Sure, it can be viewed as politics/willingness or lack of thereof. I personally see the lack of repodata support in apt as an example of the standstill in apt's development which in turn hints that maybe it's time to move forward to something else :)



BTW: Even SuSE is available with apt. I wonder why they don't have the multilib issue - I guess they don't ship multilibs :)

Apt has zero problems with mixing 32bit and 64bit packages IF the packages have different names. Suse packages their 32bit stuff for x86_64 with something like libfoo32bit names which circumvents the whole problem. Apt just can't sanely support packages having same name but different arch being simultaneously installed (+ a bunch of other misc related details)


- Panu -


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]