dnf versus yum
Lars E. Pettersson
lars at homer.se
Mon Jan 6 08:26:38 UTC 2014
On 01/06/2014 08:13 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Mon, 2014-01-06 at 08:01 +0100, Lars E. Pettersson wrote:
>> On 01/06/2014 12:46 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
>>> 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?
The reason for me asking was that you accused me of "excoriating the dnf
devs" (a rather harsh accusation) just because I did not try
erase/remove. I looked at the documentation and used auto completion.
Why would I try a number of different sub-commands if they were not
If a thing is not documented, it does not exist. The first rule of
documenting. If it exist, but is mot documented, there's a fault in the
documentation. Even if the sub-commands are there for backward
compatibility, they need to be documented for people to find them.
Lars E. Pettersson <lars at homer.se>
More information about the devel