DNF as default package manager

[Jan Zelený]

On 21. 1. 2015 at 11:13:28, Peter Robinson wrote:
> >>>>> 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.

I'm not so sure about that. Off the top of my head, I can think of rpm-4.12, 
UsrMove and systemd - those were neither proven flawless, nor they have been 
without issues when deployed. I bet there was at least one major change in 
each Fedora that was not flawless when accepted.

> Given the number of issues I see reported with dnf regarding dependencies

Obviously different depsolver = different results. Some of them for the better, 
some of them for the worse. But those that are proven problematic are baing 
taken care of continuously.

> current kernels being removed

This was fixed almost a year ago

> and other such issues

Name them please. Or better yet, report them.


Thanks
Jan