On Fri, 12 Sep 2003 14:28:50 +0000 "_ cosmicflo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >I could agree if apt and urpmi were only for the same purpose, but did > >urpmi-parallel (possibility to install on many differents machines of a > >cluster -may be a subnetwork-) exists for apt for example ? > > If this feature is so great, why don't include it in apt4rpm ? > Both are opensource, no ? > > >If you want a merge of apt and get, you'll be sure that within one month > >another tool will come to add another feature ... > > If this feature is great, why it could not be integrated ? > Is it an ego issue ? > It's not diversity, it's dispersion and it's not effective. I quote a reply from Pixel here, from February 24 2002 (Yes, it was discussed before :-) ) <quote> there was a moment where we had 2 solutions, both time costly: - dump urpmi, and switch to apt-get - enhance urpmi cons for switching to apt-get: - apt-get for rpm still needed some work - apt-get for rpm doesn't like file requires (eg: "Requires: /usr/bin/perl") - apt-get doesn't handle choices (but rpmdrake doesn't either) - we don't know apt-get (which is much bigger than urpmi, currently 11Kloc vs 4Kloc) - francois doesn't like C++ anymore :) (did I say I don't either ? oops, sorry! [1]) - urpmi can be more easily tuned for the Mandrake distribution </quote> -- Marcel Pol
