Dne 19. 12. 22 v 17:50 Jaroslav Mracek napsal(a):
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.
Please don't use this argument. I was objecting introducing dnf5 package at the time it was reviewed:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2120661#c14 Now the existence of dnf5 is the reason why we can't do something?
In Fedora 38 we need parallel installability with DNF and we cannot rename DNF as something else.
I don't think you focus on the right thing. Parallel installabilility is not useful for anything except testing, mainly because the history gets broken with all the side effects. I understand that the upgrade needs to break something to improve thins for the long term, so I accept this breakage. But just one time. I can't imagine using DNF and DNF5 in parallel long term for anything useful.
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.
I was pointing this elsewhere. But if you really learned from YUM => DNF, then you would never mentioned DNF5, but DNF version 5. There would never be dnf5-5.0.1-1.fc38 package, but dnf-5.0.1-1.fc38. It seems to me that you are saying something while doing something completely different. This is confusing to me.
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.
Good to know. Thx. Please tell me that part of the plan is renaming dnf5 => dnf and I'll shut up.
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
