dnf versus yum

Adam Williamson awilliam at redhat.com
Mon Jan 6 07:16:07 UTC 2014

On Sun, 2014-01-05 at 23:13 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:

> 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?

One thing I find a bit inconsistent, though, is that the manpage
documents "dnf erase", but "dnf group remove". :) Picking one verb or
the other and sticking with it seems advised.
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net

More information about the devel mailing list