Yum vs Apt

Michael Torrie torriem at chem.byu.edu
Thu Jul 21 14:13:24 MDT 2005


On Thu, 2005-07-21 at 12:47 -0600, Doran Barton wrote:
> apt4rpm was a great blessing when it first came on the scene, but it is and 
> always will be a hack to superimpose apt package management (designed for 
> Debian) on top of RPM packages. Yum, on the other hand, was built from the 
> ground up for RPM.

apt has always been designed to be somewhat free of the underlying
packing system.  Thus it's not a hack to impose apt on rpm.  It's just a
natural progression and it works every bit as well as on debian, save
that debian packages have some built in configurability and finer
grained packages than rpm.  Except for that, rpm == deb (as in
equivalence).  And this apt is equally adept and comfortable in the RPM
world.

Yum was built to handle some of the specific idiosyncrasies of RPM.
This is undeniable.


> Trust me guys, apt4rpm taught the RPM world a lesson and yum is the response. 
> It has crossed the threshold and can hold its own now. There's a reason the 
> third-party RPM repository maintainers (e.g. Dag, freshRPMs, Dries, etc.) are 
> advocating yum over apt4rpm. I held onto apt4rpm for a while too, but I never 
> looked back once I made the switch.

I use both apt4rpm and yum on the same machines (FC3 and FC4).  I like
yum for the group install thing, but I still use apt for installing
individual packages; it just is faster.  Anyway, both systems work great
and can even be used on the same system, so no big deal.

I have Dag, Freshrpms, all the rpmforge repositories, plus extras and
standard FC stock channels all working with yum and apt.

I'm not ready to completely abandon one for the other.  I need them
both.

> 
-- 
Michael Torrie <torriem at chem.byu.edu>



More information about the PLUG mailing list