-- snip -- > >> The onus in Fedora has _ALWAYS_ been to prove that the new feature is > >> complete and ready to replace the existing working solution, not for > >> everyone else to prove that it's not. > > > > I'm not so sure about that. Off the top of my head, I can think of > > rpm-4.12, UsrMove and systemd - those were neither proven flawless, nor > > they have been without issues when deployed. I bet there was at least one > > major change in each Fedora that was not flawless when accepted. > > For both UsrMove and systemd there was analysis of packages with > issues, migration paths over a number of releases, bugs reported > against packages, quite often with patches (eg new arch bring ups) so > the maintainers knew there was a problem. I've seen none of that with > dnf to ensure as much as possible is fixed before hand, all I've seen > is an attitude of "this isn't our problem" I'm sorry but have you looked around you? We filed bugs for all the components depending on yum, we offered help to the maintainers, we continuously discuss things with anyone who comes to us with a problem and we now have a dedicated person to help others with the migration. You are again being very unfair to all the people who participate there. > >> Given the number of issues I see reported with dnf regarding dependencies > > > > Obviously different depsolver = different results. Some of them for the > > better, some of them for the worse. But those that are proven problematic > > are baing taken care of continuously. > > Yes, no issues there but I've not seen changes in packaging policies > through the packaging working group if there needs to be changes > there, there was mention of issues with ruby vs jruby. There's no > doubt others. I don't think there needs to be a policy for every single situation and I also don't believe there is any encouragement to use yum specific behavior in any packaging policy. > There have been others cone up more recently, don't remember if it was > glibc or rpm or similar. No problem, IIRC every package can declare itself protected by dropping a file into /etc/dnf/protected.d/ > >> and other such issues > > > > Name them please. Or better yet, report them. > > I don't use dnf anymore currenty as it caused too many issues so I > went back to yum, I'm sorry to hear that. But if you gave it a fair chance, you would see that it improves significantly every month. > but I see regular discussions of issues on devel@ > and testing@ I don't follow testing so I can't comment on that one but I don't get what's wrong with discussions on devel@. The last big discussion has led to re- evaluation of some dnf behavior. I can think of no better result than that. Thanks Jan -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
