On 11. 6. 2014 at 18:55:37, Miloslav Trmač wrote: > 2014-06-11 16:08 GMT+02:00 drago01 <drago01@xxxxxxxxx>: > > That makes no sense. First of all if it obsoletes yum it will get > > pulled in during upgrades and imo it *should*. We don't really want to > > end up in a situation where half the users > > are using the default packing tool while the other half uses the old one. > > Precisely; such splits are always incredibly painful for everyone. > > Yes, it would require a more detailed contingency planning, but having > upgraded and new systems use a different package manager by the same > command name and the same scripts would be a troubleshooting nightmare. We are open to ideas. I think in this situation there is no perfect way how to satisfy everyone. We have thought about this for several months. Renaming dnf back to yum might seem like the best option at first (it was our original plan too) but when you carefully and deeply think about this, keeping dnf and yum separate is really the least painful choice. So far I haven't seen a single strong argument against it that would satisfy needs of all the involved stakeholders. Thanks Jan -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
