dnf versus yum

Michael Scherer misc at zarb.org
Fri Jan 3 12:01:23 UTC 2014

Le jeudi 02 janvier 2014 à 16:45 -0500, Rahul Sundaram a écrit :
> Hi
> On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 4:36 PM, Michael Scherer wrote:
>         It could be implemented as a plugin and still installed by
>         default.
> It could be but I doubt that is the proposed change here.  They just
> don't want to deal with the functionality at all and seem to have some
> sort of philosophical argument against it being the default behavior.
> The argument from the other side apparently is that users asked for it
> and they should get exactly what they asked even if doesn't make any
> sense mostly and the program they intend to replace it with has been
> used already with this functionality for several years which is bound
> to trip up users during the proposed transition. 

With people complaining all over the place that we do not respect
anymore the unix way, here is a case where we let people shoot them in
the foot. 

> Also I don't see the advantage of that over just merging the
> functionality and adding a configuration option. 

I could see a few. having a plugin permit to have it more extensible.
For example, let's say I want to have a system that act a bit smarter,
and prevent removing kernel, and several others stuff depending on the
hostname ( ie, in a classroom where people are using VM to test ). Or
imagine I want to let kernel be removed because the system is in a
container, so I can detect the container type and decide to let people
remove or not.

If all is set in stone in the main software, then we can hardly permit
theses use cases.

And for the record, i would be in favor of having a safeguard by
default. In fact having it in a plugin permit to anybody to have it
enabled or not in a downstream consumer, and this could even be a per-WG
Michael Scherer

More information about the devel mailing list