On Thu, Jun 12, 2014 at 10:03 AM, Jan Zelený <jzeleny@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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. Well having user that upgrade have a different package manager then those who install new is not only "not perfect" but a no go. Simple obsolete yum so that dnf gets pulled in on upgrades and have rename the yum package to yum-legacy or something and have users that want it for whatever reason install it by hand. -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
