On Thu, Jun 28, 2018 at 1:35 AM, Adam Williamson <adamwill@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
So I may have missed the latest shiny plans here - I thought the planOn Wed, 2018-06-27 at 18:18 -0400, Josh Boyer wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 4:30 PM Adam Williamson
> <adamwill@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 2018-06-27 at 16:25 -0400, Matthew Miller wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 02:54:07PM +0200, Björn Persson wrote:
> > > > > IMHO deprecate != remove, but rather mark for removal in some next release.
> > > > > Should the change be called differently?
> > > >
> > > > Especially since Yum has been called "yum-deprecated" for several
> > > > releases already.
> > >
> > > How about "Replace Yum 3 with Yum 4, powered by DNF"? This would bring
> > > us in line with what's happening in the Enterprise Linux space.
> > >
> > > (See
> > > https://wiki.centos.org/SpecialInterestGroup/ )ConfigManagementSIG/YUM4
> >
> > But in Fedora land, we've spent several years selling the message "yum
> > is gone and replaced with this new thing called dnf". It would be
> > rather confusing to suddenly start selling the message "oh hey yum is
> > back only now it's sort of dnf but sort of not dnf".
>
> It's still dnf. In fact, I believe /usr/bin/dnf would even still
> exist. However, dnf has come significantly closer to yum
> functionality since it was first introduced and reuniting isn't a bad
> idea.
>
> I understand where you're coming from, but I think we should take the
> opportunity to correct now. We (and I do mean we as someone that
> pushed for not calling it yum) had valid reasons to separate it in the
> past, but those reasons are becoming increasingly invalid. Sticking
> with the dnf name is going to become a forced split going forward for
> little benefit. I'm happy to eat my own words and say we should
> probably focus around a single package manager name at this point.
>
> > It's different from the EL situation because EL never really had the
> > "dnf is the new thing" phase. If you're going from EL 7 to The Next EL
> > you're just going from yum 3 to "yum 4".
>
> Yeah, but if you play in both spaces continuing to call it "dnf" in
> Fedora and "yum4" in EL is forcing a mental break that doesn't really
> need to be there.
was that dnf would provide a 'yum' CLI command which was as close as
possible to compatible with yum 3, but *also* provide a 'dnf' CLI
command which was more like the 'current' dnf CLI in Fedora. Is that
still the case? Or is there just going to be one true CLI command now?
DNF shouldn't diverge from YUM just "because we can".
We're fixing some obvious differences that weren't introduced for any good reason.
There will be no special compat layer just a yum -> dnf symlink.
If the compatibility is preserved to sufficient level, we believe it's a better
option than to have 2 executables with different behavior.
The long-term priority is to make DNF command-line interface and behavior consistent
and in such cases, DNF must diverge from YUM3 behavior and insisting on 100%
compatibility would block usability improvements and evolution in general.
_______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/message/BLKXTF4K3WZPM2ZHHDAWTBKJIMMUXXG3/
