F22 System Wide Change: Replace Yum With DNF

[Dennis Gilmore]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Tue, 17 Jun 2014 16:37:32 -0400
Peter Jones <pjones at redhat.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 02:40:45PM -0500, Dennis Gilmore wrote:
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> > Hash: SHA1
> > 
> > On Wed, 11 Jun 2014 08:52:34 -0400
> > Matthew Miller <mattdm at fedoraproject.org> wrote:
> > 
> > > On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 02:44:10PM +0200, Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
> > > > * package 'dnf-yum-compat-command' is installed by default. It
> > > > obsoletes Yum and provides its own <code>/usr/bin/yum</code>, a
> > > > short script that redirects to <code>/usr/bin/dnf</code> with an
> > > > appropriate warning message that DNF is the preferred package
> > > > manager now. Notice that upgrading F21 to F22 will not cause the
> > > > compat package to be installed so will not disturb any upgrading
> > > > users.
> > > 
> > > This is kind of sentimental, and I think possibly Seth would not
> > > have liked to have a big deal made of it, but... I guess I'm
> > > going to anyway. I would like to keep the "yum" name in
> > > remembrance of his contributions. This also seems like the
> > > easiest path for all of the documentation, scripts, and user
> > > habits out there. I don't mind if the backend package is called
> > > "dnf", but why not keep /usr/bin/yum as the primary command and
> > > just do the right thing, only warning on incompatible usage
> > > rather than nagging every time it is used?
> > 
> > I have personally always been under the impression that when dnf was
> > ready to be a yum replacement it would all be renamed to yum. though
> > there is still a lof of areas we will have to work on before dnf
> > can be a replacement. I am not away of any work to make mock use
> > dnf. dnf will need to be able to make mock chroots going all the
> > way back to rhel5 since we use mock in the buildsystem and we build
> > epel5 there.
> 
> Wait, why will it need to do that?  The chroots appear to be
> compatible, unless I've missed something major.  So creating them
> with the RHEL 5 host's yum should work, I hope.  Is there a something
> I've missed?
> 
i am talking about creating a rhel5 chroot on Fedora 21. not saying it
wont work. but we need to ensure that it givces us the same results,
same for el6, el7 should just be fine. it may just work, but it needs
explicit testing.

Dennis
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux)
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=T7/r
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----