On Sun, Jun 15, 2014 at 2:18 PM, Björn Persson <bjorn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote: >> On Sat, Jun 14, 2014 at 3:56 PM, Björn Persson >> <bjorn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> As a system administrator I expect "yum install", "yum remove" and >>> "yum update" to continue to work, and I expect to not have to rename >>> or edit /etc/yum.conf after an upgrade. I'm sure I'm far from alone. >> >> That's why they're changing the name: it's a major architectural shift >> in a core component, and continuing to call it yum, could be >> confusing. > > That argument contradicts this quote from the feature page: > > | letting system administrators (including users who routinely manage > | their packages using the legacy Yum) perform all common packaging > | operations using DNF, with no or minimal and documented change to > | the command syntax, apart from replacing the command name. > > The user interface can't both be so similar that the difference can be > described as "no or minimal change", and at the same time so radically > different that every user must be made painfully aware of the change. Look for the weasel words. "minimal and documented change to the command syntax," The *documented* changes, such as the handling of dependencies and of "protected" components, are profound and dangerous enough to justify a distinct. If the changes were less profound. It's still a repodata back end, it's still RPM under the hood: It's basically a refitted dashboard on the same old car. -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
