On Thu, 2014-06-12 at 17:13 +0200, Miloslav Trmač wrote: > 2014-06-12 17:03 GMT+02:00 Rahul Sundaram <metherid@xxxxxxxxx>: > > > On Thu, Jun 12, 2014 at 10:29 AM, Jan Zelený wrote: > > > >> > >> We are on the same page, thanks for your input. > >> > > > > I don't think so. You are clearly arguing for a temporary compatibility > > wrapper but eventually forcing everyone to use dnf as the command. The > > other side is wanting yum to continue to remain the name for the command > > with yum-legacy for temporary transition. In otherwords, dnf is an > > internal project name and doesn't need to be exposed to the user. > > > > There are not only two sides :) I don’t insist on dnf being a hidden > “internal project name”; introducing new features (only?) under the dnf > name is fine with me. I do object to planning to unnecessarily break the > yum commands for which we actually have compatibility. We can keep the yum symlink forever... I am for a clear break with dnf having its own name. Using yum as the name for dnf is just a lie to the user and is not helpful. Dnf is a completely different project and code base that just happens to be highly compatible with yum as a way to smooth the transition. That is perfectly fine, and not spreading lies is an excellent strategy to slowly educate users. The service -> systemctl example is actually an excellent example of a smooth transition IMO, and should be followed. If you like yum you keep the compat package, if you hate it: dnf remove yum-compat and be happy. Simo. -- Simo Sorce * Red Hat, Inc * New York -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
