The Histories, Similarities and Differences of the APT and DNF GNU/Linux Package Managers
Executive Summary
I wrote this article to present and compare two of the most dominant package management systems in the GNU/Linux world: APT (Advanced Packaging Tool) and DNF (Dandified YUM). The article provides a comprehensive overview by tracing their separate evolutionary histories, which both began to solve the "dependency hell" created by their low-level predecessors, dpkg (for APT) and rpm (for DNF).
The analysis establishes that both APT (for Debian-based systems) and DNF (for Red Hat-based systems) are high-level frontends designed to automate software installation, removal, and updates. Their primary similarity is their core function: resolving complex software dependencies by pulling packages from configured software repositories. They also share a modern, user-friendly command-line syntax, with many commands (like "install", "remove", "search") being identical.
Conversely, the article outlines their significant differences, which are rooted in their separate ecosystems. APT operates on .deb package files, while DNF operates on .rpm files. DNF is the more modern tool, having replaced YUM, and brings superior dependency resolution via the libsolv library, a robust transaction history feature (allowing for "undo" operations), and support for modularity ("AppStreams"). APT is celebrated for its speed and the sheer breadth of the Debian and Ubuntu repositories, though it lacks a built-in transaction rollback feature. The article concludes that while both serve the same ultimate purpose, DNF is architecturally more advanced, whereas APT is a highly refined and faster tool for its massive ecosystem.
Keywords: APT, DNF, GNU/Linux, Package Manager, YUM, RPM, dpkg, .deb, .rpm, Dependencies, Repository, libsolv, Debian, Ubuntu, Fedora, Red Hat, RHEL, Dependency Resolution, Transaction, History, Modularity, RHCSA, LFCS
PACKAGE_MANAGER_TERMS
|
+-- Core Concepts
| +-- Package Manager: Software that automates installing, updating, and removing programs.
| +-- OS (Operating System): Manages all computer hardware/software.
| +-- GNU/Linux: A family of open-source operating systems.
| \-- Distribution: A complete, installable OS (e.g., Fedora, Ubuntu).
|
+-- Package Formats
| +-- .deb: The package file format used by Debian-based systems.
| \-- .rpm: (Red Hat Package Manager) The package file format used by Red Hat-based systems.
|
+-- Low-Level Tools
| +-- dpkg: (Debian Package) The backend tool that directly handles .deb files.
| \-- rpm: The backend tool that directly handles .rpm files.
|
+-- Debian Family Tools (High-Level)
| +-- apt-get / apt-cache: The original high-level tools for Debian.
| \-- apt: (Advanced Packaging Tool) The modern, unified command-line tool.
|
+-- Red Hat Family Tools (High-Level)
| +-- YUM: (Yellowdog Updater, Modified) The original high-level tool for .rpm files.
| \-- DNF: (Dandified YUM) The modern replacement for YUM.
|
+-- Key Concepts & Issues
| +-- Repository: A central server that stores and serves software packages.
| +-- Dependencies: Software required by another program to run.
| +-- Dependency Hell: A state where conflicting dependencies make installation impossible.
| +-- Dependency Resolution: The process of finding and installing all dependencies.
| +-- Metadata: Data *about* packages (version, dependencies, description).
| +-- Transaction: A single, complete operation (e.g., installing a package and all its 5 dependencies).
| \-- libsolv: The advanced dependency-solving library used by DNF.
|
+-- Certifications
| +-- RHCSA: Red Hat Certified System Administrator.
| \-- LFCS: Linux Foundation Certified SysAdmin.
|
\-- Related Concepts
+-- PPA: (Personal Package Archive) A common way to add third-party repositories on Ubuntu.
\-- Modularity: A DNF feature ("AppStreams") allowing multiple software versions.
Introduction
A package manager is the heart of a modern GNU/Linux distribution, acting as the central control system for all software. It handles everything from installing a new application to applying critical security updates. For most of the GNU/Linux world, this responsibility falls to one of two major "families" of tools: APT, which powers Debian, Ubuntu, and their derivatives; and DNF, which powers Fedora, Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), and their relatives. While they do the same job, they come from different backgrounds and have different philosophies. In this article, I'll delve into the histories of both APT and DNF, explore the core similarities that make them easy to learn, and examine the critical differences that set them apart.
The reason that I wrote this article is because doing so forced me to do research on these competing package managers. In the long run, my goal is to obtain IT certifications like the RHCSA and LFCS, where a deep understanding of package management is non-negotiable. Knowing the history, similarities, and differences of APT and DNF will make me a better engineer. Let's dig in our heels and learn about these essential tools.
The Histories of APT and DNF
To understand APT and DNF, we must first look at the low-level tools they were built to manage: dpkg and rpm. Both dpkg (for Debian) and rpm (for Red Hat) are excellent at one thing: installing a single package file that you already have. However, they have no concept of *dependencies*. If you tried to install a program, they would simply fail, telling you a required library was missing. It was your job to manually find and install that library, which might have *its* own dependencies, leading to an infamous problem known as "dependency hell." APT and DNF were both born to solve this exact problem.
The history of APT begins with Debian's dpkg. In 1998, the Debian project released "apt-get" as part of the new Advanced Packaging Tool (APT) project. Its job was to be a smart "frontend" for dpkg. You would no longer download a .deb file yourself; you would just tell apt-get what program you wanted. It would then read metadata from remote "repositories," automatically calculate all the dependencies, and download and install everything in the correct order, passing the files to dpkg on the backend. For years, users interacted with multiple commands, primarily "apt-get" (for installing/removing) and "apt-cache" (for searching). In 2014, the "apt" command was introduced, unifying these functions into a single, user-friendly tool with a progress bar and cleaner output, which is now the standard on Debian and Ubuntu.
The history of DNF starts in a similar place, with the rpm tool. The original solution to dependency hell in the Red Hat world was YUM (Yellowdog Updater, Modified). For over a decade, YUM was the standard, serving the same role as apt-get. However, YUM began to show its age. It could be slow, consume a large amount of memory, and its dependency resolution logic could sometimes fail in complex scenarios. To fix this, DNF (Dandified YUM) was created. First introduced in Fedora 18 in 2013, DNF was a complete rewrite, though it was designed to be mostly command-line compatible with YUM. DNF's killer feature is its use of the "libsolv" library, a state-of-the-art dependency solver (also used by SUSE's Zypper). DNF became the default in Fedora 22 (2015) and officially replaced YUM in RHEL 8 (2019), cementing it as the new standard for the RPM-based world.
The Similarities of APT and DNF
At a high level, APT and DNF are more similar than they are different. They are "cousins" that evolved in parallel to solve the same set of problems.
First, their core purpose is identical: they are high-level, user-friendly frontends that automate dependency resolution. You tell them *what* you want (the end-state), and they do the hard work of *how* to get there.
Second, both systems are entirely dependent on software repositories. Neither tool stores packages itself; instead, they manage a list of remote servers (defined in configuration files, e.g., in /etc/apt/sources.list or /etc/yum.repos.d/) from which they download package metadata and the packages themselves.
Third, the modern command-line syntax is nearly identical for the most common operations. This makes it trivial for a system administrator to move between Debian-based and Red Hat-based systems.
| Task | APT Command | DNF Command |
| :--- | :--- | :--- |
| Install a package | apt install nano | dnf install nano |
| Remove a package | apt remove nano | dnf remove nano |
| Upgrade all packages | apt upgrade | dnf upgrade |
| Search for a package | apt search nano | dnf search nano |
| Show package details | apt show nano | dnf info nano |
| List installed packages | apt list --installed | dnf list installed |
Finally, both tools treat operations as "transactions." When you install a program that requires 10 dependencies, the package manager calculates the entire operation first. If it succeeds, it applies all 11 changes. If any part fails (e.g., a disk is full), it will attempt to abort, leaving the system in a stable state rather than half-configured.
The Differences of APT and DNF
The primary differences between APT and DNF stem from the ecosystems they were built for and the specific architectural choices made during their development.
The most obvious difference is the underlying package format. APT is part of the Debian ecosystem and is designed to manage .deb packages, using dpkg as its backend. DNF is part of the Red Hat ecosystem, manages .rpm packages, and uses rpm as its backend. You can never use APT on a Fedora system or DNF on an Ubuntu system, as they are fundamentally incompatible.
A key operational difference is in how they handle metadata. APT maintains a local cache of all available packages, but it *never* updates it automatically. You must manually run "apt update" to refresh this list *before* you can run "apt upgrade" to install new packages. DNF, by contrast, automatically checks for metadata updates (within a certain cache time) whenever you run a command like "dnf upgrade" or "dnf install". This makes DNF a "one-step" process, whereas APT is a "two-step" process, but it can also make APT's "upgrade" command *feel* faster since the "update" step was already done.
The most significant architectural difference is DNF's robust transaction history. DNF records every transaction (install, remove, upgrade). You can run "dnf history list" to see a log of every operation. More importantly, you can use "dnf history undo <id>" to automatically roll back an entire transaction. If an update broke a critical application, you can revert it with a single command. APT has no built-in equivalent. It logs its history (in /var/log/apt/history.log), but rolling back is a complex, manual process of force-downgrading individual packages.
Finally, DNF, as the more modern tool, has features that APT lacks. Its libsolv-based dependency solver is widely considered faster and more reliable in complex scenarios. DNF also natively supports "Modularity" (also called "AppStreams") in modern RHEL-based distros. This allows the operating system to officially support multiple versions of a language or database (e.g., Python 3.6, 3.8, and 3.9) in parallel, and DNF provides the commands to switch between them. APT's ecosystem solves this problem differently, usually through third-party repositories called PPAs (Personal Package Archives).
Conclusions
APT and DNF are the impressive results of decades of evolution, both starting from simple, "dumb" tools (dpkg and rpm) and growing into the intelligent, indispensable managers they are today. They successfully solved the problem of "dependency hell" and made managing a GNU/Linux system reliable and simple. Their core similarities in purpose and command structure mean that an administrator who knows one can easily use the other.
However, their differences are significant. APT is a highly optimized, fast, and stable tool that serves as the gateway to the vast Debian and Ubuntu repositories. Its two-step update/upgrade process and lack of a transaction rollback feature are minor trade-offs for its speed and maturity. DNF, as the successor to YUM, represents a more modern architecture. It brings a superior dependency solver (libsolv) and powerful administrative features like transaction history/undo and modularity, which are clear advantages in its native Fedora and RHEL environments. Ultimately, neither is "better"; they are simply the right tool for their respective ecosystems.
PACKAGE_MANAGER_OUTLINE
|
+-- Introduction
| +-- Defines package manager as the heart of a GNU/Linux OS.
| +-- Introduces APT (Debian/Ubuntu) and DNF (Fedora/RHEL) as the two main families.
| \-- States author's goal: Research for RHCSA and LFCS certifications.
|
+-- The Histories of APT and DNF
| +-- Both evolved to solve "dependency hell" from low-level tools (dpkg, rpm).
| +-- APT History: `dpkg` (no dependencies) -> `apt-get` (1998) as a smart frontend -> `apt` (2014) as a unified, user-friendly command.
| \-- DNF History: `rpm` (no dependencies) -> `YUM` (the original frontend) -> `DNF` (2013) to replace YUM's slowness and memory use. DNF uses the `libsolv` solver.
|
+-- The Similarities of APT and DNF
| +-- Core Purpose: High-level frontends for automatic dependency resolution.
| +-- Repositories: Both pull metadata and packages from remote servers.
| +-- Command Syntax: Modern commands are nearly identical (install, remove, upgrade, search).
| \-- Transactions: Both treat operations as single, complete "transactions" for stability.
|
+-- The Differences of APT and DNF
| +-- Ecosystem / Backend: APT uses `.deb` packages (with `dpkg`). DNF uses `.rpm` packages (with `rpm`).
| +-- Metadata Update: APT requires a manual `apt update` (two-step). DNF auto-checks on use (one-step).
| +-- Transaction History: DNF has `dnf history list` and `dnf history undo`. APT lacks a built-in rollback feature.
| \-- Modern Features: DNF has the superior `libsolv` solver and supports "Modularity" (AppStreams). APT's ecosystem uses PPAs.
|
\-- Conclusions
+-- Both are highly evolved tools that solved dependency hell.
+-- APT is fast, mature, and has a vast repository.
\-- DNF is architecturally more modern, with a better solver and transaction undo, making it the standard for the Red Hat ecosystem.
```