Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On Thu, 2005-01-27 at 08:52 -0500, seth vidal wrote:
>>RH has the ability to change this at any time.
>>
>>
>ability? yes. willingness? no.
>
>
>
>
>>It is not - RH has had no problems in adding yum support and has no
>>problem in adding and removing other packages at any time at RH's free
>>will.
>>
>>
>Do you know why they had no issue adding yum support? B/c it could be
>covered internally. If it broke and I wasn't around to fix it - they
>could take care of it.
>
>100+ lines of C++ they were not interested in maintaining.
>
>
How comes, FE/fedora.us is able to maintain it?
I know apt's code is ... ... leaves a lot to be desired, but it doesn't
require that much effort to maintain the package.
Also not true. The guy who maintained apt-rpm chose to write smartpm
instead.
That sez' a whole lot about the maintainability of the apt code base.
There are many
known legacy issues with C++ as well, can't be helped, I'm certainly not
complaining.
Or perhaps a whole lot about the politics of package management and vendors.
One never knows, and one cannot tell. <shrug>
>>For example instead of adding yum and keeping up2date, RH could have
>>tried to help apt. - IMO, this is all politics and not at all
>>technically motivated.
>>
>>
>IMO you don't know what you're talking about.
>
>
I guess, I do ... I spent way too much time with rpmlib and apt.
Tried smartpm? Best damn depsolver that I've ever seen, does all the
(imho) useful
stuff that apt does (and yum/up2date do not, at least not yet, like
back-tracking),
without the C++ baggage and the Debian Borg politics.
But, by all means, if *you* like apt, then *you* should use apt. Use
what works.
73 de Jeff