dnf versus yum
awilliam at redhat.com
Mon Jan 6 07:13:25 UTC 2014
On Mon, 2014-01-06 at 08:01 +0100, Lars E. Pettersson wrote:
> On 01/06/2014 12:46 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > On Sun, 2014-01-05 at 19:24 +0100, Lars E. Pettersson wrote:
> >> As I mentioned before I only auto completed yum, remove is not party of
> >> the auto completed commands. If remove should be there, then this is a
> >> bug. I will file one.
> >> dnf has no auto completion and I have only seen reference to erase. The
> >> man page of dnf does not mention remove (it mentions 'group remove').
> >> This should probably be added. I will file a bug on that one too.
> >> As a side not 'dnf --help' shows:
> >> '--version show Yum version and exit'
> >> which probably also is wrong.
> >> This is by no mean any excoriation of the dnf devs on my part.
> >> Three documentation "bugs" out of a side track of a thread is not a
> >> terrible thread, in my opinion...
> > If it exists for backward compatibility, it doesn't necessarily need to
> > be documented.
> Ehh? Why? Could you elaborate?
I don't see what needs elaborating. I'm not aware that the 11th
commandment is "Every Subcommand Must Be Documented, Even Ones You Just
Put In So People Still Using Syntax From The Old Tool You're Replacing
Won't Have A Problem". If that's the only reason a synonym of a
documented subcommand exists, what's the point of documenting it? Anyone
who needs it doesn't need documentation to find it - that's the *point*,
if they were going to read the documentation, they'd know the *new*
subcommand - and anyone who reads the documentation doesn't stand to
gain anything from learning that a subcommand has a synonym for
backwards compatibility purposes. So, why go to the trouble?
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net
More information about the devel