F22 System Wide Change: Replace Yum With DNF
jzeleny at redhat.com
Thu Jun 12 14:29:21 UTC 2014
On 12. 6. 2014 at 10:09:13, Chuck Anderson wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 12, 2014 at 02:10:22PM +0200, Jan Zelený wrote:
> > > > 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
> > > want it for whatever reason install it by hand.
> > I think this is is alignment with what I said before - yum and dnf will
> > still stay separated and dnf is not renamed. So if there is no argument
> > against your proposal, we might as well give it a shot.
> The arguments against renaming the command have been given. The dnf
> command should either be renamed back to yum, or there should be
> permanent backwards compatibility via a script, symlink, etc. There
> is NO good reason to force everyone to change scripts and command line
> habits just for the sake of changing the name of a command that is an
> almost 100% compatible evolution of the older command. Call the
> package dnf and obsolete the yum package, rename the old yum package
> to yum-legacy--fine. But please make "yum install" etc. still work
> with dnf.
We are on the same page, thanks for your input.
More information about the devel