Matthew Miller <mattdm(a)fedoraproject.org> writes:
On Tue, Oct 15, 2019 at 12:36:15PM +0200, Miro Hrončok wrote:
>> As package maintainers we all make technical decisions which have
>> significant impact on our users every day - whether that's in the
>> choice of defaults, choice of build flags, or whatever. Honestly
>> delivering as modules-vs-non-modules is a completely trivial issue
>> compared to most of the stuff I spend time on. If "yum install X"
>> still works most people just don't care about the RPM/dnf/repo
>> mechanics behind that.
>
> Except it works only half way. The installation works. Later,
> dependencies are broken. Upgrades are broken. "yum remove X" does not
> undo the action completely.
>
> The main issue is: user just enabled a module without doing it
> explicitly. The user needs to know how to handle modules in order to
> recover.
I never expect "yum remove X" to be the inverse of "yum install
X". DNF's magical leaf tracking makes it a bit more so, but not
exactly. So, I don't think we should make that a very high priority
concern (although if we can improve it, so much the better).
I don't think it's an unreasonable expectation, especially for those
coming from APT land (Debian, Ubuntu) where `apt install foo` *is* the
inverse operation of `apt remove foo`.
Thanks,
--Robbie