On Wed, Jun 13, 2007 at 06:44:44PM -0400, Art Wildman wrote: > Axel Thimm wrote: > >On Tue, Jun 12, 2007 at 04:40:17PM -0500, Connie Sieh wrote: > > > >>On Tue, 12 Jun 2007, Axel Thimm wrote: > >> > >> > >>>On Tue, Jun 12, 2007 at 04:12:13PM -0500, Connie Sieh wrote: > >>> > >>>>SL 3.0.x and 4.x both have apt for rpms. But apt does not do well with > >>>>multiarch releases and it is not maintained as much as it used to be so > >>>>we > >>>>took it out for SL 5. > >>>> > >>>apt-rpm's maintainer is rather active and was even recently employed > >>>by Red Hat. If you thing there are issues with apt, please report it > >>>to him, perhaps even through bugzilla.redhat.com (although they will > >>>first land on my table, but perhaps the Auto-Cc in bugzilla will work) > >>> > >>Did not know this. > >> > >> > >>>FWIW apt and multiarch work fine on i386/x86_64 and ppc/ppc64 > >>>systems. I've heard about issues on ia64 some time back, but don't > >>>know if they were fixed or not. > >>> > >>> > >>Last time I had tested it did not work. What version of apt supports > >>multiarch? > >> > > > >Every release since about a year and more. > > > >ATrpms (and I'm sure Dag and Dries) has apt for EL4/EL5 if you want to > >just give it a try. > > > > News to me too, there were several mail-list & forum threads about > limited development & support for apt-rpm last year and recommendations > to switch to yum or smart-rpm. Since I was most familiar with yum & knew > Seth was hired by the Redhat last year,
He was hired just about a couple of weeks ago.
> I assumed that would be an advantage for yum & have focused my
> attention on yum improvements in Fedora, EL & SL.
yum is still the prefered depsolver at Red Hat, anaconda is using it
now as a backend.
> Also, there appear to be no new apt-rpm releases, and many repos no
> longer include apt-rpm /etc/sources examples in their FAQs, to help
> folks setup apt-rpm.
Which repos don't include these examples? Perhaps you mean that noone
uses the native apt format anymore ("rpm ...")? That's because apt
supports (also since about a year) yum's format, e.g. the repomd
format. No different metadata for ypt needed.
> Apt4RPM News - 28 Februari 2005: a new version (0.69.3) has been released...
> http://apt4rpm.sourceforge.net/
Oh, that's not apt-rpm, that's a toopls similar to
genbase/createrepo. The real apt-rpm home is at apt-rpm.org:
News
APT-RPM development switches from Subversion to GIT (25.02.2007)
--
Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
pgphDrbAVnowF.pgp
Description: PGP signature
