Hello,
I haven't been using Fedora for a while (2+ years) and yesterday I installed fedora on dad's computer and see that they replaced yum with dnf. Now the question is why was this done ? And who names their package manager as "DNF" ? The name seems pretty weird to be honest.
Thanks for any input on this one. Have fun
Junayeed Ahnaf Nirjhor
Twitter - @Nirjhor https://twitter.com/Nirjhor
On Wed, 9 Dec 2015 16:17:00 +0600, Junayeed Ahnaf wrote:
Hello,
I haven't been using Fedora for a while (2+ years) and yesterday I installed fedora on dad's computer and see that they replaced yum with dnf. Now the question is why was this done ? And who names their package manager as "DNF" ? The name seems pretty weird to be honest.
Thanks for any input on this one. Have fun
Junayeed Ahnaf Nirjhor
Allegedly, on or about 09 December 2015, Junayeed Ahnaf sent:
And who names their package manager as “DNF” ? The name seems pretty weird to be honest.
As acronyms go, I think it's an odd one, too. DNF in sporting parlance means did not finish. To other people, it might mean do not f**k.
On 12/09/2015 11:27 AM, Joe Zeff wrote:
On 12/09/2015 03:21 AM, Tim wrote:
As acronyms go, I think it's an odd one, too. DNF in sporting parlance means did not finish. To other people, it might mean do not f**k.
Why couldn't you spell out fork properly. Or were you referring to fsck?
Seems to me that the better question to have been asked by the OP would have been: What was WRONG with yum? and: What does dnf fix that was broken in yum?
Seems to me that the better question to have been asked by the OP would have been: What was WRONG with yum? and: What does dnf fix that was broken in yum?
I second this -----Original Message----- From: users-bounces@lists.fedoraproject.org [mailto:users-bounces@lists.fedoraproject.org] On Behalf Of jd1008 Sent: Thursday, December 10, 2015 12:34 AM To: Community support for Fedora users users@lists.fedoraproject.org Subject: Re: Why was YUM removed
On 12/09/2015 11:27 AM, Joe Zeff wrote:
On 12/09/2015 03:21 AM, Tim wrote:
As acronyms go, I think it's an odd one, too. DNF in sporting parlance means did not finish. To other people, it might mean do not f**k.
Why couldn't you spell out fork properly. Or were you referring to fsck?
-- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
On 12/09/2015 07:33 PM, jd1008 wrote:
On 12/09/2015 11:27 AM, Joe Zeff wrote:
On 12/09/2015 03:21 AM, Tim wrote:
As acronyms go, I think it's an odd one, too. DNF in sporting parlance means did not finish. To other people, it might mean do not f**k.
Why couldn't you spell out fork properly. Or were you referring to fsck?
Seems to me that the better question to have been asked by the OP would have been: What was WRONG with yum? and: What does dnf fix that was broken in yum?
My view: The only thing that was wrong with yum, was it being work-in-progress, when its maintainer passed away.
Later somebody fell into the common trap of believing a rewrite was superior/easier than gradual improvements. IMO, dnf once more proved this consideration wrong.
Ralf
On 12/09/2015 11:47 AM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On 12/09/2015 07:33 PM, jd1008 wrote:
On 12/09/2015 11:27 AM, Joe Zeff wrote:
On 12/09/2015 03:21 AM, Tim wrote:
As acronyms go, I think it's an odd one, too. DNF in sporting parlance means did not finish. To other people, it might mean do not f**k.
Why couldn't you spell out fork properly. Or were you referring to fsck?
Seems to me that the better question to have been asked by the OP would have been: What was WRONG with yum? and: What does dnf fix that was broken in yum?
My view: The only thing that was wrong with yum, was it being work-in-progress, when its maintainer passed away.
Later somebody fell into the common trap of believing a rewrite was superior/easier than gradual improvements. IMO, dnf once more proved this consideration wrong.
Ralf
What's interesting to me, is that you cannot compile the very last working yum and expect it to build and work flawlessly in in fc22 and later. THAT is more upsetting to me than the issues/problems in dnf.
What's interesting to me, is that you cannot compile the very last working yum and expect it to build and work flawlessly in in fc22 and later. THAT is more upsetting to me than the issues/problems in dnf.
Why is that? What’s the problem ? Any specific library it is built against became non supported? -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
On 12/09/2015 12:37 PM, Junayeed Ahnaf wrote:
What's interesting to me, is that you cannot compile the very last working yum and expect it to build and work flawlessly in in fc22 and later. THAT is more upsetting to me than the issues/problems in dnf. Why is that? What’s the problem ? Any specific library it is built against became non supported? -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
Building the full yum will have dependencies that might be unsuitable for running in fc22 and later, because the yum packages will have conflicts with other required packages that are part of fc22 and later.
This is "progress" :) :)
Allegedly, on or about 09 December 2015, Ralf Corsepius sent:
My view: The only thing that was wrong with yum, was it being work-in-progress, when its maintainer passed away.
One hopes that something as central as the updating/installing tool would be (a) worked on by more than one person, and (b) sufficiently documented that the project could be taken over.
My second point seems to be seriously lacking on Fedora. While I can't personally speak to documentation regarding software coding, the documentation for operating some software is sorely lacking. There are some distros where good documentation is a prerequisite to software being accepted.
On 10. 12. 2015 at 22:21:42, Tim wrote:
Allegedly, on or about 09 December 2015, Ralf Corsepius sent:
My view: The only thing that was wrong with yum, was it being work-in-progress, when its maintainer passed away.
One hopes that something as central as the updating/installing tool would be (a) worked on by more than one person, and (b) sufficiently documented that the project could be taken over.
My second point seems to be seriously lacking on Fedora. While I can't personally speak to documentation regarding software coding, the documentation for operating some software is sorely lacking. There are some distros where good documentation is a prerequisite to software being accepted.
That's something that substantially improved with dnf taking over.
Thanks Jan
On 10 December 2015 at 11:51, Tim ignored_mailbox@yahoo.com.au wrote:
Allegedly, on or about 09 December 2015, Ralf Corsepius sent:
My view: The only thing that was wrong with yum, was it being work-in-progress, when its maintainer passed away.
One hopes that something as central as the updating/installing tool would be (a) worked on by more than one person, and (b) sufficiently documented that the project could be taken over.
My second point seems to be seriously lacking on Fedora. While I can't personally speak to documentation regarding software coding, the documentation for operating some software is sorely lacking. There are some distros where good documentation is a prerequisite to software being accepted.
Was that not the case for YUM? It was worked on by more than one person and while I don't know what the developer documentation for it is like the end user documentation had been around for a long time. The case, at least as Ralf put it, is that with the lead developer's (tragic) death the people working on it decided to build something else instead.
On 10 December 2015 at 14:44, Ian Malone ibmalone@gmail.com wrote:
On 10 December 2015 at 11:51, Tim ignored_mailbox@yahoo.com.au wrote:
Allegedly, on or about 09 December 2015, Ralf Corsepius sent:
My view: The only thing that was wrong with yum, was it being work-in-progress, when its maintainer passed away.
One hopes that something as central as the updating/installing tool would be (a) worked on by more than one person, and (b) sufficiently documented that the project could be taken over.
My second point seems to be seriously lacking on Fedora. While I can't personally speak to documentation regarding software coding, the documentation for operating some software is sorely lacking. There are some distros where good documentation is a prerequisite to software being accepted.
Was that not the case for YUM? It was worked on by more than one person and while I don't know what the developer documentation for it is like the end user documentation had been around for a long time. The case, at least as Ralf put it, is that with the lead developer's (tragic) death the people working on it decided to build something else instead.
Though the chronology of that is wrong, because FESCO approved DNF in 2012, when it was already being suggested as a YUM replacement.
On 12/10/2015 04:51 AM, Tim wrote:
Allegedly, on or about 09 December 2015, Ralf Corsepius sent:
My view: The only thing that was wrong with yum, was it being work-in-progress, when its maintainer passed away.
One hopes that something as central as the updating/installing tool would be (a) worked on by more than one person, and (b) sufficiently documented that the project could be taken over.
My second point seems to be seriously lacking on Fedora. While I can't personally speak to documentation regarding software coding, the documentation for operating some software is sorely lacking. There are some distros where good documentation is a prerequisite to software being accepted.
Having been a sw engineer for more than 40 years, I can say that for most corporations, documentation is not a big source of income. Couple that with the fact that most of the documentation was written before the product went out the door and also before the product was deemed "complete and ready to ship", and thirdly, with all the changes that went into the product (big and small), the documentation is not rewritten to reflect such drastic changes and modifications.
This is indeed the SW culture IN GENERAL, but not necessarily true for every single SW product.
Tim wrote:
As acronyms go, I think it's an odd one, too. DNF in sporting parlance means did not finish. To other people, it might mean do not f**k.
Joe Zeff:
Why couldn't you spell out fork properly. Or were you referring to fsck?
I left it so people could use whatever f**k word they wanted to. :-p
On Wed, 2015-12-09 at 16:17 +0600, Junayeed Ahnaf wrote:
I haven't been using Fedora for a while (2+ years) and yesterday I installed fedora on dad's computer and see that they replaced yum with dnf. Now the question is why was this done ? And who names their package manager as "DNF" ? The name seems pretty weird to be honest.
No wierder than YUM (Yellow-dog Updater Modified)
poc
On Wed, 09 Dec 2015 11:31:14 +0000, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
as "DNF" ? The name seems pretty weird to be honest.
No wierder than YUM (Yellow-dog Updater Modified)
Well, it had started as a modified "yup" (the Yellow Dog Linux Updater), but it's certainly weird to keep the name for so long and even after heavy changes.
On 12/09/2015 11:31 AM, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
On Wed, 2015-12-09 at 16:17 +0600, Junayeed Ahnaf wrote:
I haven't been using Fedora for a while (2+ years) and yesterday I installed fedora on dad's computer and see that they replaced yum with dnf. Now the question is why was this done ? And who names their package manager as "DNF" ? The name seems pretty weird to be honest.
No wierder than YUM (Yellow-dog Updater Modified)
It's a terrible name for anyone who knows motor racing: it indicates a total failure.
Andrew.
On Wed, Dec 9, 2015 at 2:04 PM, Andrew Haley aph@redhat.com wrote:
It's a terrible name for anyone who knows motor racing: it indicates a total failure.
What is wrong with the Linux world that prevents it from using human readable package names that indicate its FUNCTION?
Fedora-package-manager was not cool? Too obscure? It can then provide a "fpm" alias via the alias shell function, that calls the longname version. What would be wrong with that?
And for compatibility reasons, aliases could be provided to the olver package names (provided the basic syntax is unchanged wrt command line parameters).
Is there any conscious effor to prevent modern Linux from using Human Readable Package Names? -lets call such effort *HuRePaN* ;)
FC
On Wed, 2015-12-09 at 15:06 -0500, Fernando Cassia wrote:
On Wed, Dec 9, 2015 at 2:04 PM, Andrew Haley aph@redhat.com wrote:
It's a terrible name for anyone who knows motor racing: it indicates a total failure.
What is wrong with the Linux world that prevents it from using human readable package names that indicate its FUNCTION?
See: http://www.gocomics.com/printable/pearlsbeforeswine/2015/12/10/ jon
On Dec 9, 2015 4:17 AM, "Junayeed Ahnaf" nirjhor@outlook.com wrote:
Hello,
I haven’t been using Fedora for a while (2+ years) and yesterday I
installed fedora on dad’s computer and see that they replaced yum with dnf. Now the question is why was this done ? And who names their package manager as “DNF” ? The name seems pretty weird to be honest.
Thanks for any input on this one. Have fun
Junayeed Ahnaf Nirjhor
Twitter - @Nirjhor
-- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
The bottom of each post to this list contains a link to the mailman web interface of the list. That interface provides a browseable archive, and you can easily search by googling something like "search terms site: https:/archive_url". When you review these archives, you'll find ample fact and opinion on the topic.
--Pete
This is the rationale I was told:
http://www.linux-magazine.com/Online/Features/Will-DNF-Replace-Yum
-
Andrew Haley -
Bruce Byfield -
Fernando Cassia -
Ian Malone -
Jan Zelený -
JD -
Joe Zeff -
Jonathan Ryshpan -
Junayeed Ahnaf -
Michael Schwendt -
Patrick O'Callaghan -
Pete Travis -
Ralf Corsepius -
Tim