> I am still very much against the `dnf5` package name and I have uneasy > feelings reading (in my words) "`/usr/bin/dnf` symlink will change from > `/usr/bin/dnf-3` to `/usr/bin/dnf5`". This name change is going to break > so basic assumption such as `rpm -q dnf`. It won't really work even when > `rpm -q dnf5` output was `dnf5-6.0.0-1.fc43.noarch`. > > Please give Fedora DNF version 5 instead of DNF5. Please reconsider the > package name, especially when the "Obsolete dnf package by dnf5" is > still part of the plan. There is still time to update the proposal. I am really sorry but I don't see a way how we can ship DNF5 as DNF package. The reason is quite simple. We already ship DNF5 in Fedora 38 as DNF5. In Fedora 38 we need parallel installability with DNF and we cannot rename DNF as something else. I also remember RHEL8 where we ship DNF as YUM. And DNF is very similar to YUM - both are Python based tool. Anyway in RHEL9 the same tool is shipped as DNF, because it creates a confusion. And I don't want to experience the same issue twice. I understand that the name change is always not nice, but keeping the same name for a different tool is worse. > BTW it would also help if you sketched out what is the timeline and > process to deprecate DNF 4.x. I have a plan to open a system wide change to remove DNF for Fedora 40. > > > Vít > > > > Dne 19. 12. 22 v 16:24 Vít Ondruch napsal(a): Best regards Jaroslav Mracek _______________________________________________ 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
