Dne 11.6.2014 17:20, Jan Zelený napsal(a):
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
I, for one, support this change as it was proposed.
Vít
--
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
