On 11. 6. 2014 at 09:02:29, Rahul Sundaram wrote: > Hi > > On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 8:52 AM, Matthew Miller wrote: > > 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 strongly agree with this for practical reasons. There is no good > rationale for moving away from yum as the name of the command except some > of the command line changes which happened with yum anyway (download only > was added and later removed for example) and one can warn specifically for > those. The API changes are not something users care about. Also, dnf > needs to drop all the legacy options before the transition (ie) pick erase > or remove (preferably the latter) etc rather than retain all the > compatibility options. The transition period is one reason why we want to keep the name dnf. We'd basically like to keep current yum around for users that have various scripts and stuff depending on it so they have some time to migrate to dnf. Also presenting dnf as a separate project forked from yum gives us better flexibility - for instance it's easier to drop obsoleted stuff because users don't have that high compatibility expectations. Thanks Jan -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
