Le samedi 14 juin 2014 à 03:10 +0200, Reindl Harald a écrit : > Am 14.06.2014 03:04, schrieb Michael Scherer: > > Le vendredi 13 juin 2014 à 15:07 +0200, Petr Spacek a écrit : > >> On 13.6.2014 14:58, Reindl Harald 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 > >>> > >>> why do so many developers not understand that simple fact? > >> > >> I don't think that simple fact that DNF is re-write of YUM justifies re-naming > >> and re-training all users. Users don't care what you do with the source. And > >> of course, users will complain no matter what you do. > > > > Like they complained when up2date was replaced by yum ? > > when zipper replaced whatever they used to have on *suse before ? > > When pkgin replaced pkg_add on some of the BSD ? > > > > It happened in the past, and I do not remember seeing so much > > complains.. > > maybe people just have enough of repeated iterations every > few months breaking compatibility left and right while it would > have been possible to replace/improve things without breakage You may not realize, but having someone who do not do your job telling you how to do it is perceived as pretty annoying for a lot of people. > as said repeatly in that thread: > > go ahead and propose to rename GNOME3 because it is no longer GNOME Gnome is not a single software, it is a brand, and a collection of software. Keeping the brand is likely the reason why it was not renamed. But the part that did change visually, ie the windows manager and the shell among others got renamed from whatever it was named to gnome-shell. Same goes for rhytmbox, afaik. > go ahead and propose to rename Linux because 3.15 is no longer Linux 1.0 I fail to see how comparing changes in more than 15 years is relevant to the current discussion. Nor even how anecdotal point of data is relevant. > and that changes where much bigger than a fork of YUM renamed > for no good reason especially in context of replace it it was renamed to provides side by side installation among others. I am sure that people would have been more upset if it was not done this way. ( as seen by the migration to gnome 3/kde 4 and people complaining exactly on that ). So maybe you should propose to have dnf named yum 4.0, and then since that's a major version, we would be ok to change the behavior, command lines switch, configuration and backend in a backward incompatible way ? Or even with the name yum and a clear indication, that's something that shouldn't be changed, in which case, yum 3 behavior should be kept, which mean "keeping all the code and behavior until later" ? -- Michael Scherer -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
