FC3 - Has the community given up on up2date?

[Ken Snider]

nodata wrote:

> I think so, yes. If not, why was yum developed?

It was developed initially by another vendor, Yellow Dog Linux. It wasn't 
developed for Fedora.

> Personally, I'm a apt person. I find it takes less time to do what I want
> it to do: apt certainly starts faster, and the search facility is much
> better, but yum does have that nice groupinstall option.

And you are obviously not a person using multiarch, or you'd quickly find out 
where apt id deficient

> Another advantage of apt is that it still works when you break your python
> install..

That argument is a red herring. Are you more likely to break, for example, 
your python install than, say, the more-often-updated glibc install (which 
would break all package managers, really)?

> up2date can't handle 404s, it just dies. up2date's gui will blank out all
> important information. I'm guessing it's a threading problem - I don't
> know.

*shrug* I use the text version. However bugs are bugs - they need to be fixed, 
and I certainly wouldn't call the bugs described above the reason to jettison 
a whole app.

> A healthy bit of competition between yum and apt is always good, but I
> can't see a good reason for up2date any more - is there one? :)

#1 reason our organization uses it? Support for more *types* of repositories 
than apt and yum combined, complete with cross-dependency checking for all.

So, there's two big reasons right there, to answer your question.

-- 
Ken Snider