On 12. 6. 2014 at 10:09:13, Chuck Anderson wrote: > On Thu, Jun 12, 2014 at 02:10:22PM +0200, Jan Zelený wrote: > > > > 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. > > > > I think this is is alignment with what I said before - yum and dnf will > > still stay separated and dnf is not renamed. So if there is no argument > > against your proposal, we might as well give it a shot. > > The arguments against renaming the command have been given. The dnf > command should either be renamed back to yum, or there should be > permanent backwards compatibility via a script, symlink, etc. There > is NO good reason to force everyone to change scripts and command line > habits just for the sake of changing the name of a command that is an > almost 100% compatible evolution of the older command. Call the > package dnf and obsolete the yum package, rename the old yum package > to yum-legacy--fine. But please make "yum install" etc. still work > with dnf. We are on the same page, thanks for your input. Jan -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
