F22 System Wide Change: Replace Yum With DNF

Reindl Harald h.reindl at thelounge.net
Sat Jun 14 01:33:54 UTC 2014

Am 14.06.2014 03:24, schrieb Michael Scherer:
> Le samedi 14 juin 2014 à 03:10 +0200, Reindl Harald a écrit :
>>> Like they complained when up2date was replaced by yum ?
>>> when zipper replaced whatever they used to have on *suse before ? 
>>> When pkgin replaced pkg_add on some of the BSD ?
>>> It happened in the past, and I do not remember seeing so much
>>> complains..
>> maybe people just have enough of repeated iterations every
>> few months breaking compatibility left and right while it would
>> have been possible to replace/improve things without breakage
> You may not realize, but having someone who do not do your job telling
> you how to do it is perceived as pretty annoying for a lot of people.

you may not realize but having someone deciding changes and what
you have to adopt on your setups is pretty annoying for a lot
of people called "users"

>> as said repeatly in that thread:
>> go ahead and propose to rename GNOME3 because it is no longer GNOME
> Gnome is not a single software, it is a brand, and a collection of
> software. Keeping the brand is likely the reason why it was not renamed.
> But the part that did change visually, ie the windows manager and the
> shell among others got renamed from whatever it was named to
> gnome-shell. Same goes for rhytmbox, afaik.

that does not change the fact from the users point of view
it is no longer GNOME

>> go ahead and propose to rename Linux because 3.15 is no longer Linux 1.0
> I fail to see how comparing changes in more than 15 years is relevant to
> the current discussion. Nor even how anecdotal point of data is
> relevant.

i fail to see the need of rename the well known package manager

>> and that changes where much bigger than a fork of YUM renamed
>> for no good reason especially in context of replace it
> it was renamed to provides side by side installation among others. I am
> sure that people would have been more upset if it was not done this way.
> ( as seen by the migration to gnome 3/kde 4 and people complaining
> exactly on that ).

because both where a complete different product and not just
a new version, DNF is just a new version of YUM and that's
what major version numbers are for

> So maybe you should propose to have dnf named yum 4.0, and then since
> that's a major version, we would be ok to change the behavior, command
> lines switch, configuration and backend in a backward incompatible
> way? 


> Or even with the name yum and a clear indication, that's something that
> shouldn't be changed, in which case, yum 3 behavior should be kept,
> which mean "keeping all the code and behavior until later" ?

jesus christ the code behind has *nothing* to do with the userinterface
and options - i have rewritten code of software i maintain for a decade
now multiple times and in the meantime there is for sure not a single
line the same as started 2003 without break user expectations

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 246 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/attachments/20140614/d5503398/attachment.sig>

More information about the devel mailing list