F22 System Wide Change: Replace Yum With DNF
misc at zarb.org
Sat Jun 14 01:42:11 UTC 2014
Le samedi 14 juin 2014 à 03:33 +0200, Reindl Harald a écrit :
> Am 14.06.2014 03:24, schrieb Michael Scherer:
> > Le samedi 14 juin 2014 à 03:10 +0200, Reindl Harald a écrit :
> >> 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?
so, just to be clear, that's ok to change the behavior, command lines
switch, configuratio and backend in backward _incompatible_ for yum 4.0
aka dnf, for you ?
> > 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
In the case of dnf, the plugin api did changed. And I doubt people want
to bring back the old one. So the user expectation around specific
plugin is already broken.
Yet, do you advocate bringing back the old API that no one liked, and
more importantly, you volunteer to do that ?
More information about the devel