F22 System Wide Change: Replace Yum With DNF

Jan Zelený jzeleny at redhat.com
Fri Jun 13 12:53:56 UTC 2014


On 13. 6. 2014 at 11:36:25, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
> 2014-06-13 10:20 GMT+02:00 Jan Zelený <jzeleny at redhat.com>:
> > On 13. 6. 2014 at 10:09:48, Reindl Harald wrote:
> > > Am 13.06.2014 10:01, schrieb Jan Zelený:
> > i have not heard any valid reason to call a software DNF instead just
> > 
> > > the next major version of YUM which is millions of times mentioned
> > > and well known everywhere - *forget* DNF as name - you won't revert
> > > the fact that everybody translates it to "Did Not Finish" beause
> > > it has no senseful meaning and so finally you can call it "yum-ng"
> > > and in the history ng-replacements did not change binary names
> > 
> > I have explained the reason on multiple occasions. If you volunteer to do
> > the
> > bug cleanup regularly and to explain users on daily basis that dnf is
> > actually
> > different from yum and they should not consider changes in behavior
> > regressions, I will think about this some more (no promises). But fair
> > warning, this effort will cost you about an hour of your time every single
> > day.
> 
> So not wanting users to complain about “yum” no longer having some 
features
> is the only reason for dropping the yum name I have seen in this thread
> (also called “setting expectations”); have I missed other reasons?

No, there is not. But I think you misunderstood the reason, although not by 
much. The fact is that dnf *is* different project than yum, let's not try to 
mask it. The vast majority of code base is different (> 85% for sure), its 
architecture is different, the community is different, the entire nature of the 
project is different. And the fact that its CLI interface tries to be as 
compatible as possible with yum doesn't change any of this.

That being said, the reason for not renaming dnf to yum is that renaming this 
project to yum will do nothing else than to confuse its users, as they will 
think this is still yum and they should expect from dnf it what they expected 
from yum. They should not. And dnf is not yum, I'm really sorry if you think 
it is.

If you want some more reasons, consider that the Python API might be 
different in dnf compared to yum and the configuration is definitely different:

$ man yum.conf | wc -l                                                                                                       
872
$ man dnf.conf | wc -l                                                                                                
138


> If this is *the* reason, and you simultaneously propose to *keep* the 
“yum”
> name for the forseeable future, i.e. for the *entire time users are likely
> to complain*, how do you expect to get the benefit?  AFAICS those bugs will
> get filed and will have to be handled, so “setting expectations” will not
> help your team’s workload at all.

I wonder now, would it be better if we just dropped the yum command 
entirely?

Thanks
Jan


More information about the devel mailing list