On Jul 19, 2004, at 1:25, frankieh wrote:
Greg Meyer wrote:
On Sunday 18 July 2004 12:13 pm, Avi Schwartz wrote:On the command line, the differences are minimal IMO, but there is a large group of people that prefer the gui frontend called synaptic. I am speaking for them here, but they prefer the integrated functionality as opposed to the simple approach taken by rpmdrake.What is the advantage apt-get has over urpm*? I used it only for a short amount of time on Debian and as far as I can tell, the urpm* suite of programs seem to be equivalent to apt-get. But as I said, I am not fluent when it comes to apt-get.
Personally, it doesn't much matter to me because I work primarily from the command line now, but as they say, difernt strokes for difernt folks.
I thought dpkg was one of the things apt-get does that makes it somewhat better.
For example, if you install postfix, it stops and asks you for the main settings and then configures it as well
so its mostly ready to go as soon as its installed.
The first time I played with debian, I was suprised that the installing packages were asking me config questions...
its pretty cool.
OK, now I understand and I agree on both items. While I never used synaptic, I did use SuSE for few years and their installer (YAST) is integrated which is much nicer in my opinion.
As for dpkg, yet this is nice indeed. Now I remember that it did this for me as well, stop and ask for configuration settings during the install. BTW, I remember that at least on some occasions, YAST did this as well in SuSE so it may be something that can be added to the RPMs, like a post-install configuration step.
Avi
____________________________________________________ Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com Join the Club : http://www.mandrakeclub.com ____________________________________________________
