Am 14.06.2014 02:59, schrieb Michael Scherer: > Le vendredi 13 juin 2014 à 10:39 -0400, Steve Clark a écrit : >> On 06/13/2014 09:03 AM, drago01 wrote: >> >>> On Fri, Jun 13, 2014 at 2:58 PM, Reindl Harald <h.reindl@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>> Am 13.06.2014 14:53, schrieb Jan Zelený: >>>>> That being said, the reason for not renaming dnf to yum is that renaming this >>>>> project to yum will do nothing else than to confuse its users, as they will >>>>> think this is still yum and they should expect from dnf it what they expected >>>>> from yum. They should not. And dnf is not yum, I'm really sorry if you think >>>>> it is. >>>> the user expects that anyways if you replace something he >>>> did not asked for replace it and what just worked for him >>> Well there are different levels of "works" i.e just because something works that >>> something does not have to be the best possible implementation of >>> "something" ... >>> >>> Horses worked too but at some point we decided that cars work better >>> and moved on. >> Yes but who is this better for? A few developers or the mass of people >> and documentation that >> are used to using "yum". >> >> With cars it was obviously better for me - dnf not so obvious. > > So far in this thread, I see no one stepping to maintain yum in the long > term, just people asking to others to do it. > > But having someone volunteering to maintain it would be the solution. > People who want to keep yum forever, just maintain it what are you talking about? *nobody* asked that *nobody* the point is *not* break YUM as name and in documentations as well as thousands of howtos, articles and books you can't re-write and gain the missing pieces of compatibility
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
-- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
