DNF as default package manager

[Peter Robinson]

>>>>> But I'm really interested in state of DNF as default too. Should I switch mock to use DNF as default?
>>>>> For me there is still lot of unfinished tasks. E.g. documenting what --installroot should actually do [BZ 1163028]
>>>> I don't think it's ready, it might be useful to have an option to
>>>> switch it over for local use to enable easier wider testing but I
>>>> certainly don't think it's ready to be default for mock yet.
>>>>
>>>> Peter
>>> I am using mock for Fedora development with DNF enabled by default and
>>> it works just fine. May be you want to share what is troubling you?
>> There is a difference between « it works just fine for me » and « it
>> works to build the distro »
>>
>> The latter needs much more testing and guarantees than the former,
>> although the former is certainly encouraging.
>>
>>
>
> If somebody says "I certainly don't think it's ready to be default for
> mock yet.", I expect him to have strong evidence that something is
> wrong, not that something needs more testing.

If somebody says that it's ready to go I would expect them to have
used mock to rebuild the entire distribution and prove that it works,
preferably twice actually once as an initial run from the original yum
builds, then again with dnf for a second run and prove, with
statistics to show that installs of said bits end up with the same
reproducible results for things like Workstation/Server/Minimal etc
installs.

The onus in Fedora has _ALWAYS_ been to prove that the new feature is
complete and ready to replace the existing working solution, not for
everyone else to prove that it's not. Given the number of issues I see
reported with dnf regarding dependencies, current kernels being
removed and other such issues I've seen nothing to prove it's
ready.... Sorry!

Peter