dnf versus yum

Rahul Sundaram metherid at gmail.com
Thu Jan 2 21:08:41 UTC 2014


On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 3:52 PM, Matthew Miller wrote:

> This one is clearly one of those "doomed to repeat history" things in
> motion.
> Protected packages was first implemented * as a yum plugin because Seth
> thought it was kind of crazy and shouldn't be core functionality, but then
> it proved itself in real use and became built-in. Now, the DNF pages says
> "Similar functionality can be implemented by a plugin", putting us right
> back where we were. **

Pretty much, yeah. I remember trying to convince Seth to merge the
functionality and got pretty similar replies to what I hear from Ales now.
Similar issues at https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1044984  and
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1044984.  I really dislike
going through the same process twice.  Pushing such functionality out into
plugins won't work well either because by the time users realize that such
a plugin exists and they might need them, it is likely to be too late and
if you discard existing features without understanding the use cases fully,
you will end up creating a rough transition for users. If someone is going
to replace  A with B, it would be nice for the developers involved to go
through the release history and bugs and find out why the current
functionality was done the way it was before deciding to change it.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/attachments/20140102/576e365e/attachment.html>

More information about the devel mailing list