F22 System Wide Change: Replace Yum With DNF

Michael Scherer misc at zarb.org
Sat Jun 14 13:04:38 UTC 2014

Le samedi 14 juin 2014 à 12:55 +0200, Reindl Harald a écrit :
> Am 14.06.2014 12:26, schrieb Michael Scherer:
> > Le samedi 14 juin 2014 à 04:00 +0200, Reindl Harald a écrit :
> >> Am 14.06.2014 03:42, schrieb Michael Scherer:
> >>> Le samedi 14 juin 2014 à 03:33 +0200, Reindl Harald a écrit :
> >>>>> 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? 
> >>>>
> >>>> yes
> >>>
> >>> 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 ?
> >>
> >> it is *NEVER* ok to break user interfaces without a damned good reason
> >> there is no single reason to break command line switches at all
> > 
> > So why do you say "yes" at the proposal "that should be ok to break
> > command line switch" if you mean "no" ?
> to show you how weird your "come on let us break compatibility" is
> > So you are in favor of keeping the current behavior as is for how long ?
> > (because it sound like "forever" for you)
> yes forever to say it clear
> if it ain't broken don't fix it
> > Well, yes, because that's the developer that has to make the effort. It
> > is easy to say "do that" and going back to your business. In the end,
> > those who work decide. And so far, I do not see patches coming from you
> i am fine with YUM for many years as others are too
> there was and is no valid reason to break CLI interfaces
> > That's why the developers do ask "what is missing". That's also why I
> > ask for you what compatibility you exactly want, and you keep avoiding
> > giving a clear answer
> *full* compatibility - is that so hard to understand and why?

So basically, you want "full compatibility forever". Then I guess you
cannot say that nobody ask for that, since you just did.


Yet, I still do not see you offering any help to achieve that, only you
requiring it.

> > Yes. And I would be in favor personally, so that let developers free to
> > change the interface and anything if they see fit without having to keep
> > old code for the old interface.
> why do you need to keep old code for compatible CLI interfaces?

Because that's the easiest way, especially for plugins. 

Otherwise, any changes could result in unrelated side effects and
regressions, and the more options you provides, the more stuff there is
to break. And the QA cost of full compatibility is rather high,
especially for python where there isn't much isolation or interface for
the code ( ie, you can directly go to the internal structures, kinda
like DOS years ago ). 

Michael Scherer

More information about the devel mailing list