-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Greetings again folks,
One of the things I like about Fedora Core is the fact that I can add apt as a repository tool. Has anyone done this for CentOS-3? Why was yum chosen? I prefer apt over yum because of features and was wondering if anyone had created an apt repository for CentOS.
Thanks in advance for the info, I'm not trying to start an apt vs. yum discussion/war. I know the two can coexist on the same server, so...
Also, what's the deal with up2date on CentOS-3 nowadays? Is it just my server that was having the freaky python error messages? I've been using yum for a month or so now.
Sincerely,
- --Shawn
- -- - -- Shawn M. Jones smj@littleprojects.org http://www.littleprojects.org
On Wed, 2004-09-08 at 23:52 -0400, Shawn M. Jones wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Greetings again folks,
One of the things I like about Fedora Core is the fact that I can add apt as a repository tool. Has anyone done this for CentOS-3? Why was yum chosen? I prefer apt over yum because of features and was wondering if anyone had created an apt repository for CentOS.
Thanks in advance for the info, I'm not trying to start an apt vs. yum discussion/war. I know the two can coexist on the same server, so...
Also, what's the deal with up2date on CentOS-3 nowadays? Is it just my server that was having the freaky python error messages? I've been using yum for a month or so now.
right now the problem with apt on centos-3 or any of the rhel rebuild projects is that apt has issues with how red hat implemented multilib support
so many issues, in fact, that it can't do it. so that means no x86_64 at all.
What feature in apt are you missing in yum or up2date.
oh and the reason for the failure in up2date is b/c of a problem with the package red hat originally shipped. It should be fixed in centos 3 update 3 - due out this week - or earlier next week.
-sv
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
seth vidal wrote: | On Wed, 2004-09-08 at 23:52 -0400, Shawn M. Jones wrote: <SNIP> |>yum chosen? I prefer apt over yum because of features and was wondering |>if anyone had created an apt repository for CentOS. <SNIP> |>Also, what's the deal with up2date on CentOS-3 nowadays? Is it just my <SNIP!> | right now the problem with apt on centos-3 or any of the rhel rebuild | projects is that apt has issues with how red hat implemented multilib | support | | so many issues, in fact, that it can't do it. | so that means no x86_64 at all.
I did not know about this. Wow. Thanks for the info. Actually, in retrospect, this explains to some degree why apt for rpm and apt for deb produce differing outputs. I've noticed that apt for rpm keeps its info in a less clean manner than the original apt does.
| What feature in apt are you missing in yum or up2date.
Actually, I mostly like being able to grab and build source rpms. It's something that up2date can (supposedly) do, but yum does not have the functionality yet. I guess I could just write a patch and send it into the guys at Duke, but it feels weird to try to add functionality to one software package when another exists that does everything I want.
They've stated that no one seems to be interested in source functionality: https://lists.dulug.duke.edu/pipermail/yum/2004-June/004526.html
| oh and the reason for the failure in up2date is b/c of a problem with | the package red hat originally shipped. It should be fixed in centos 3 | update 3 - due out this week - or earlier next week.
Woohoo!!! Anything I can do to help? Actually, now that I think about it, my earlier post indicates my CentOS box isn't fully functional right now, but it's got one good drive in the mirror set working. Need some packages built?
- --Shawn
- -- - -- Shawn M. Jones smj@littleprojects.org http://www.littleprojects.org
I did not know about this. Wow. Thanks for the info. Actually, in retrospect, this explains to some degree why apt for rpm and apt for deb produce differing outputs. I've noticed that apt for rpm keeps its info in a less clean manner than the original apt does.
Well the trick is apt on suse x86_64 works ok for their implementation of multilib - b/c suse tags the 32bit and 64bit packages differently.
Actually, I mostly like being able to grab and build source rpms. It's something that up2date can (supposedly) do, but yum does not have the functionality yet. I guess I could just write a patch and send it into the guys at Duke, but it feels weird to try to add functionality to one software package when another exists that does everything I want.
NB: I'm the 'guys at Duke' :)
They've stated that no one seems to be interested in source functionality: https://lists.dulug.duke.edu/pipermail/yum/2004-June/004526.html
I don't have a problem with it - it's just not something immediately on my radar. However, if you'd like to work on something like that - I can point you in the right direction for it. It's actually easier to do now than it was a few months ago.
Woohoo!!! Anything I can do to help? Actually, now that I think about it, my earlier post indicates my CentOS box isn't fully functional right now, but it's got one good drive in the mirror set working. Need some packages built?
Could you make my day job a little less demanding? That'd make things happen, for me, faster. :)
-sv
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
seth vidal wrote: <SNIP!> |>Actually, I mostly like being able to grab and build source rpms. It's |>something that up2date can (supposedly) do, but yum does not have the |>functionality yet. I guess I could just write a patch and send it into |>the guys at Duke, but it feels weird to try to add functionality to one |>software package when another exists that does everything I want. | | NB: I'm the 'guys at Duke' :)
Yeah, I realized that after I hit "Send", then I felt a little silly.
<SNIP!> | | I don't have a problem with it - it's just not something immediately on | my radar. However, if you'd like to work on something like that - I can | point you in the right direction for it. It's actually easier to do now | than it was a few months ago.
Please point. I'll implement the features I want then.
| | Could you make my day job a little less demanding? That'd make things | happen, for me, faster. :)
Hmmmm... Not sure what I could do there besides build packages. I'm already doing my 40 hours with the government and 2 grad classes myself. ~ :-)
- --Shawn
- -- - -- Shawn M. Jones smj@littleprojects.org http://www.littleprojects.org
On Thu, 9 Sep 2004, seth vidal wrote:
They've stated that no one seems to be interested in source functionality: https://lists.dulug.duke.edu/pipermail/yum/2004-June/004526.html
I don't have a problem with it - it's just not something immediately on my radar. However, if you'd like to work on something like that - I can point you in the right direction for it. It's actually easier to do now than it was a few months ago.
Seth,
I know I volunteered for the centos/rhel patch comparisons, and haven't finished that yet, but it is an "after-hours" project. My "day job" could make good use of yum source rpm support, because we upgrade centos with mysql4, and thus all packages that link againt mysql need to be rebuilt. I wrote a bash script to do this and just made my own yum repo to handle it, but since we don't actually modify the rpms (just rebuild them on a system where we've upgraded mysql), having srpm rebuild support would simplify things. I'm no python guru, but if you can do some pointing I think I could handle this.
Could you make my day job a little less demanding? That'd make things happen, for me, faster. :)
You need to ask for Professor MacGonagall's Time Turner ;-)
-
Ryan Sweet -
seth vidal -
Shawn M. Jones