On Thu, Apr 21, 2022 at 11:01 AM Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
<zbyszek(a)in.waw.pl> wrote:
> * Compatibility
> ** To improve user experience and to unify dnf/microdnf behavior we
> were unable to keep 100% compatibility with formal Microdnf in
> command-line and in behavior
Can you comment more on this part? yum/dnf command-line and behaviour
compatiblity made adoption fairly easy. (I know it wasn't 100%, but the
major parts were compatible.)
I see that e.g. microdnf5 doesn't have 'list': is this intentional?
Lack of 'list' would break many basic dnf uses…
Also, what is the plan for normal command-line use: microdnf5 or the dnfdaemon
client?
Yeah, this is something that I'm also worried about in the long-term.
We've had dnf for so long now that there's tons of guides and docs
that reference dnf command line stuff.
And I don't even want to guess how many scripts there are that call
dnf on the command line that would be broken if it would be replaced
by something that's not a drop-in replacement ... most importantly,
what will happen to stuff from dnf-utils, like repoquery, and
repoclosure commands?
repoquery is an essential tool for package maintainers, and from my
experience, I'm often using it from a scripted context. If that would
no longer work or require reimplementing or adapting all my scripts
that call dnf commands, that's a pretty big deal :(
Fabio