dnf versus yum

Lars E. Pettersson lars at homer.se
Mon Jan 6 16:22:33 UTC 2014

On 01/06/2014 05:04 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
>> 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.

Well, they are not documented. That should be enough to test. (I have 
added these documentation bugs to Bugzilla, and next version of dnf will 
now show both uses, hopefully the yum bug will be corrected soon also)

>> 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. ;)

Your quote was one sentence too little. The second sentence was "The 
first rule of documenting". I.e. the first rule of documenting is that 
something that is not documented does not exist. I.e. make sure that 
your documentation fully document what the application (in this case) is 
capable of doing, including all sub commands, options, etc.

The reasoning behind this is so that a user can get the full picture of 
the application by only reading the documentation. He/she should not 
need to try things, they should be documented, if they are not 
documented, then it is a documentation bug.

Lars E. Pettersson <lars at homer.se>

More information about the devel mailing list