dnf versus yum

Adam Williamson awilliam at redhat.com
Mon Jan 6 16:04:45 UTC 2014

On Mon, 2014-01-06 at 09:26 +0100, Lars E. Pettersson wrote:
> 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 
> documented?

Because you're suggesting that they no longer exist? Making sure the
thing you claim no longer exists *actually no longer exists* seems like
a pre-requisite of making such a claim.

> If a thing is not documented, it does not exist.

No, I think you're confused. If it's not documented, it's not
documented. If it doesn't exist, it doesn't exist. Two different
conditions, see. One related to existence. One to documentation. ;)

>  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.

Um. No. No they don't. I've been running 'dnf remove' for weeks.
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net

More information about the devel mailing list