kc.ubuntu...@centrum.cz wrote: > #> If you look at the comparison i posted above, you can se that APT is > worse than Urpmi and SMART - which was the best dependency solver in that > comparison. Zypper mentioned above, is a ittle bit better than #smart: > #> > #If you look at users' feelings, situation will rotate significantly, due to > my > #experience. > > That's completely nonsense. Possitive rating targets the APT-DEB-debian > repository complete system. It does not mean, APT it-self is good. It can be > worst all-over the world, but usage among single repository with dependencies > tested for years before release can't challenge hard solver work. That's almost completely not true. Debian release managers and maintainers of key system packages may tell you how much efforts they put to allow smooth and painless upgrades of the system.
> As you pointed above, and as I understand it, APT is de-facto simple > package-updater. Mixing many repositories or downgrading is treated as a > stupid way. Am I right? Mixing many repos? Not, of course. I see sources.list's with dozen of repos. Downgrading packages may break your system (by design, in any software). So, all downgrades should be done with caution and in not-automatic way. > OK. Maybe i just supposed APT to do various things I'm used to expect from > other package managements. Now i undrstand, reading the point of view of APT > ?cotributor?, this piece of software is not for me. Maybe. -- Eugene V. Lyubimkin aka JackYF, JID: jackyf.devel(maildog)gmail.com C++/Perl developer, Debian Maintainer
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
