Moving from apt to smart?

[Richard Bos]

Hello Joachim,

Op zaterdag 15 maart 2008 10:21, schreef Joachim Schrod:
> Well, after some hours, I've got a few questions, maybe you can
> help me out:
>
>   -- "smart priority --show smart" aborts and outputs a traceback.
>      (I've got three channels where the package is available.)
>      Is that a known issue?

See: http://tracker.labix.org/ , but I could not find an issue.
I encounter the same prob, I think:
# smart priority --show kolab
Package                        Channel              Priority
------------------------------------------------------------
Traceback (most recent call last):
  File "/usr/bin/smart", line 194, in <module>
    main(sys.argv[1:])
  File "/usr/bin/smart", line 167, in main
    exitcode = iface.run(opts.command, opts.argv)
  File "/usr/lib/python2.5/site-packages/smart/interface.py", line 53, in run
    result = _command.main(self._ctrl, opts)
  File "/usr/lib/python2.5/site-packages/smart/commands/priority.py", line 
106, in main
    aliases = pkgpriorities.keys()
AttributeError: 'NoneType' object has no attribute 'keys'


>   -- Can I specify post-action scripts, that are executed after
>      installs or upgrades?

http://tracker.labix.org/issue95

>   -- Can I specify at install or upgrade that I want to ignore a
>      package's lock flag just for this one operation?
>      The use case: I lock upgrades for essential packages like the
>      Linux kernel, to be able to do other updates smoothly. Then I
>      want to do the kernel install -- to do that, I need to take the
>      lock flag away, install the update, and then set the lock flag
>      again. It would be nice if I'd have an option --no-lock or -o
>      lock=false or so for this install operation.

http://tracker.labix.org/issue67

>   -- If an upgrade wants to install a package and I want to know why
>      it does so, how would you do that? E.g., when I did the first
>      big update sweep (after DVD install, no online update with
>      zypper) with smart, it installed libgsf from DVD. But there are
>      no package that requires libgsf. So, why on earth did it select
>      that package for installation?

smart upgrade --explain, is I think what you're looking for.

>   -- What is the difference between --check and --check-update for
>      "smart upgrade"?
>
> To be honest, at first glance I don't see if smart is really better
> than apt. I see lots of areas where the two tools are similar, and
> the differences are more a matter of taste or of habit. I'm aware
> that coming from an apt background, some quirks may need to get
> used to. E.g., I like the output of apt-cache policy better than
> smart install --explain. The post-update framework of SUSE's apt is
> IMHO better, too (see my rpmkey question above).
>
> But so far, I've not seen a feature set where smart is
> substantially better, that would entice me to switch from apt. (I
> also run Debian servers here, to use apt both for Debian and for
> SUSE is thus of some value.)
> Therefore -- what do you see as your switch-to-smart advantages,
> compared to apt?

In theory the upstream support for smart is better than for apt-rpm.  The 
problem with apt-rpm is that it is bound to a forked version of apt.  As such 
it can profit from the developments of apt.  You therefor see that apt is now 
somewhere at version 0.6.46 while apt-rpm is still at 0.5.x  In other words 
apt-rpm is kept alive, but smart development should be more active.  
Unfortenately as you can see by my reference to some (older) feature request, 
it looks like that smart needs more development.  

> I hope that my questions don't come across as irritating; I'm
> really curious, what I did miss and where I did not understand the
> available help texts and documentation.

+1

-- 
Richard Bos
Without a home the journey is endless