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