On March 13, 2019 11:46:12 AM EDT, Theodore Papadopoulo <Theodore.Papadopoulo@inria.fr> wrote:

On 3/13/19 4:03 PM, mcatanzaro@gnome.org wrote:
On Wed, Mar 13, 2019 at 7:50 AM, Kalev Lember <kalevlember@gmail.com>
wrote:
Please don't, it's just pointless renaming that invalidates all end user
documentation and makes it harder for other programs such as packagekit
and gnome-software that all need to adopt for the new paths.

Handling a rename is not exactly rocket science. Why would this be at
all problematic? The change is proposed for F31, not F30. That's plenty
of time. If this is the last remaining usage of "yum" in the distro then
let's get rid of it and move on. Since both locations should be read, it
should be fully backwards-compatible anyway.

It is reasonable to introduce a better name for the repo and
/etc/distro.repos.d seems to be a nice and clearer one. It furthermore
somewhat stresses that it is not related to a specific tool (yum) which
is indeed the case since packagekit and others also use it.

So creating the new directory (1) -- provided everyone agrees on the
name -- and putting the repo files in it is nice and not complicated or
dangerous.

A different question is migration of all tools/documentation to this new
directory. Fortubately, there is a simple solution. Make a symbolic link
from the old directory to the new. Adding this symbolic link (2) ensures
that everything works smoothly immediately (and conveys the message that
the "true" directory changed).

A third question (3) is when to suppress the symbolic link. Nothing
requires that this is immediate (except eventually some aesthetics). It
can last as long as needed to ensure that all tools are migrated and
that the name change is sufficiently documented (there will be always
old web ressources that will remain with the old name, but if the new
name appears often enough on web searches, that's OK).

I believe that (1) and (2) can be done immediately and could be consensual.

(3) can be dealt much later....

    Theo.