DNF vs. YUM

[Jan Zelený]

On 13. 3. 2014 at 10:04:04, Mark Haney wrote:
> On 03/13/14 09:52, Tethys wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 1:48 PM, Jan Zelený <jzeleny at redhat.com>
> > 
> > wrote:
> >> The metadata are quite large and downloading them every single
> >> time is time consuming.
> > 
> > I can't think of an occasion on which I'd want to say "update this
> > package, but not to the latest version". For installing new
> > software, maybe. But updating an already installed package? I'd say
> > the default should be to check metadata in that instance.

That's your opinion and we respect it by providing you the means how to do 
exactly what you want (see my previous email for details).

> Comparing apt and yum is silly.  But I see the point.  I've never been
> personally all that impressed with how Debian updates packages.  Fast,
> maybe.  Consistent?  I have always had a real problem with .deb
> packages and updating configuration files.  Invariably I have config
> files that don't get updated and don't work with the new versions.
> Then I have to spend precious time updating the files by hand.
> Personally, yum does a much better job of that.

And dnf will provide the best of the two - it will stay consistent (older 
packages are not in the repos anyway) and it will increase the performance 
by fetching the metadata only when necessary.

> Making RPMs and yum more efficient is great, don't get me wrong.  But
> I don't care about speed.  I typically manually run updates from the
> CLI every day.  I prefer seeing the progress that way than from a GUI.
>  But, I guess that comes from years of being a command line jockey.

And you can still do that in dnf, it's just not the default behavior

Thanks
Jan