On 13. 6. 2014 at 10:09:48, Reindl Harald wrote: > Am 13.06.2014 10:01, schrieb Jan Zelený: > > On 12. 6. 2014 at 11:41:52, Simo Sorce wrote: > >> We can keep the yum symlink forever... > > > > Definitely, we do no insist on removing it. I am perfectly fine with > > removing it some time far in the future when nobody uses it any more > > one said "forever", i am not a native english speaker but IMHO > that word has a clear definition > > * do not insist on removing it > * removing it some time far in the future > > you can have one of them :-) Please, don't nitpick, it's not cool. What I meant is to maybe remove it when there is a general consensus it should be removed. Period, end of story. > i have not heard any valid reason to call a software DNF instead just > the next major version of YUM which is millions of times mentioned > and well known everywhere - *forget* DNF as name - you won't revert > the fact that everybody translates it to "Did Not Finish" beause > it has no senseful meaning and so finally you can call it "yum-ng" > and in the history ng-replacements did not change binary names I have explained the reason on multiple occasions. If you volunteer to do the bug cleanup regularly and to explain users on daily basis that dnf is actually different from yum and they should not consider changes in behavior regressions, I will think about this some more (no promises). But fair warning, this effort will cost you about an hour of your time every single day. This is the last reply to you on this matter, thanks for understanding. Thanks Jan -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
