F22 System Wide Change: Replace Yum With DNF

drago01 drago01 at gmail.com
Thu Jun 12 08:14:13 UTC 2014

On Thu, Jun 12, 2014 at 10:03 AM, Jan Zelený <jzeleny at redhat.com> wrote:
> On 11. 6. 2014 at 18:55:37, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
>> 2014-06-11 16:08 GMT+02:00 drago01 <drago01 at gmail.com>:
>> > That makes no sense. First of all if it obsoletes yum it will get
>> > pulled in during upgrades and imo it *should*. We don't really want to
>> > end up in a situation where half the users
>> > are using the default packing tool while the other half uses the old one.
>> Precisely; such splits are always incredibly painful for everyone.
>> Yes, it would require a more detailed contingency planning, but having
>> upgraded and new systems use a different package manager by the same
>> command name and the same scripts would be a troubleshooting nightmare.
> We are open to ideas. I think in this situation there is no perfect way how to
> satisfy everyone. We have thought about this for several months. Renaming dnf
> back to yum might seem like the best option at first (it was our original plan
> too) but when you carefully and deeply think about this, keeping dnf and yum
> separate is really the least painful choice. So far I haven't seen a single
> strong argument against it that would satisfy needs of all the involved
> stakeholders.

Well having user that upgrade have a different package manager then
those who install new is not only "not perfect" but a no go.
Simple obsolete yum so that dnf gets pulled in on upgrades and have
rename the yum package to yum-legacy or something and have users that
want it for whatever reason install it by hand.

More information about the devel mailing list