Re: dnf replacing yum and dnf-yum

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 




----- Original Message -----
> From: "Radek Holy" <rholy@xxxxxxxxxx>
> To: "Development discussions related to Fedora" <devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Friday, April 10, 2015 4:02:12 PM
> Subject: Re: dnf replacing yum and dnf-yum
> 
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Jan Zelený" <jzeleny@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > To: "Steve Clark" <sclark@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Cc: devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Sent: Friday, April 10, 2015 3:15:42 PM
> > Subject: Re: dnf replacing yum and dnf-yum
> > 
> > On 10. 4. 2015 at 08:56:16, Steve Clark wrote:
> > > On 04/10/2015 08:40 AM, Jan Zelený wrote:
> > > > On 10. 4. 2015 at 07:16:30, Steve Clark wrote:
> > > >> On 04/10/2015 07:04 AM, Jan Zelený wrote:
> > > >>> On 10. 4. 2015 at 09:34:15, Reindl Harald wrote:
> > > >>>> Am 10.04.2015 um 09:18 schrieb Jan Zelený:
> > > >>>>> On 10. 4. 2015 at 08:53:46, Petr Spacek wrote:
> > > >>>>>> I very much agree with this. As a user, I expect that 'dnf
> > > >>>>>> upgrade'
> > > >>>>>> will
> > > >>>>>> give me latest packages and that DNF will tell me the fact that
> > > >>>>>> newer
> > > >>>>>> packages are available but not installable.
> > > >>>>>> 
> > > >>>>>> Maybe it could have a form of plugin, at least for the beginning?
> > > >>>>> 
> > > >>>>> Again, dnf check-update already does that
> > > >>>> 
> > > >>>> Again: that argument is pointless because *nobody* is calling it by
> > > >>>> hand
> > > >>>> after "dnf upgrade" and so that information is *not* available for
> > > >>>> the
> > > >>>> regular dnf/yum user
> > > >>> 
> > > >>> The vision for dnf is to be more simple and more effective tool for
> > > >>> admins
> > > >>> that will not try to solve problems of other components. On the other
> > > >>> hand we want to enable package maintainers and other advanced users
> > > >>> to
> > > >>> achieve their use cases somehow but dnf will never be a debugging
> > > >>> tool.
> > > >>> Bottom line, we will consider this feature request but considering it
> > > >>> is
> > > >>> the only promise I can give you.
> > > >>> 
> > > >>> Thanks
> > > >>> Jan
> > > >> 
> > > >> Mr. Zeleny,
> > > >> 
> > > >> As an admin and user how does this behavior make it simpler for me? I
> > > >> now
> > > >> have to do 2 steps to make sure things worked as expected. How is this
> > > >> simpler?
> > > > 
> > > > What we envision is for the admin not to debug the problem himself,
> > > > it's
> > > > not his responsibility. Packaging problems should be discovered
> > > > automatically when an update is created. This is being worked on by
> > > > Fedora QA IIUIC. Package maintainers are the second line of defense, as
> > > > they should resolve these problems before updates go stable. But these
> > > > issues should never get to the end user.
> > > > 
> > > > Bottom line, if an update is in a repo but it's not installable, it's
> > > > technically not available to the client as some of the bits are
> > > > obviously
> > > > missing. Maybe you could help me understand what value does the
> > > > information
> > > > have for you when you can't install the packages anyway.
> > > > 
> > > > Thanks
> > > > Jan
> > > 
> > > Mr. Zeleny,
> > > 
> > > It is naive, in my opinion, to assume that Fedora is going to supply all
> > > the
> > > packages one might need. I quite frequently run into the problem of
> > > dependencies from other repos clashing with Fedora's, and others and have
> > > to use the information provided by yum to determine how to clean things
> > > up.
> > > In what is proposed now I will have to do two steps to determine there is
> > > a
> > > problem.
> > 
> > 
> > Ok, I think I understand your problem a little better now, even though I
> > still
> > maintain the opinion that dnf should not be a debugging tool. I have seen a
> > few proposals here that have the potential to be a nice compromise.
> > 
> > Also I wonder if dnf check-update is actually useful. From what I've read
> > here, it seems it's barely used. If dnf is to have its functionality
> > covered
> > by the upgrade command, perhaps it's possible to remove the check-update
> > command.
> 
> FYI, at first sight, the implementation of "dnf check-update" is almost the
> same as "dnf list upgrades" except that "check-update" returns a special
> exit code...

...where the difference is of a questionable value given the discussion above...
-- 
Radek Holý
Associate Software Engineer
Software Management Team
Red Hat Czech
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct





[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Announce]     [Fedora Kernel]     [Fedora Testing]     [Fedora Formulas]     [Fedora PHP Devel]     [Kernel Development]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Maintainers]     [Fedora Desktop]     [PAM]     [Red Hat Development]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]
  Powered by Linux