Dne 12. 10. 22 v 15:48 Miroslav Suchý napsal(a):
Dne 12. 10. 22 v 12:28 Vít Ondruch napsal(a):So since I don't think the DNF5 name and especially the package name was elaborated here and my wish in package review to have the package name just `dnf` was completely ignored [1], I'll ask here.Why `dnf5` and not `dnf` version 5. If it is not DNF and it needs different name, then please rather name it `foobar`. I think that introducing the version into name is wrong (with exception of compat packages) and I think that DNF should lead by example and not abusing the package name for version.My opinion is that it should not be packaged as "dnf" until it is ready to fully replace DNFv4. And that will take some time. I think it is fine to introduce it now in Fedora as "dnf5" package. And later rename it to "dnf".
There are following statements in the "Scope" section of current change proposal:
* Obsolete dnf package by dnf5 * Modify comps groups to replace dnf or yum by dnf5 This does not suggest that "And later rename it to "dnf"." is the plan.But if it is the plan, then I'd love to see it documented in the change proposal. Of course the rename back to "dnf" should happen prior various places and especially documentation gets updated to "dnf5".
Vít
Attachment:
OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
