On 11. 6. 2014 at 15:03:12, Przemek Klosowski wrote: > On 06/11/2014 11:20 AM, Jan Zelený wrote: > > 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. > I think this is a mistake---if dns truly provides the functionality then > it should replace yum. Hopefully the majority of people can use dnf as > is, but if there are corner cases that only the original yum handles, > then it's better to make it available as, say, 'yum-original' or 'yum > --yum-me-harder'. As I said on numerous occasions during the last few days, dnf is not a 100% drop-in replacement of yum. It aims to be as compatible as possible but within reason - one of the important goals of dnf is clean and maintainable design. > It boils down to this: someone is going to be inconvenienced. I argue > it's better to inconvenience the minority with special 'yum' needs by > making them use the 'yum-old' alias, rather than inconveniencing the > majority by making everyone switch their scripts and fingers to 'dnf'. As I said, we will have transition layer so using yum in your shell scripts will still work for a few more releases. A vast majority of users should not experience any inconveniences other than different output on the command line. Thanks Jan -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
