On Thu, Jun 28, 2018 at 1:35 AM, Adam Williamson <adamw...@fedoraproject.org > wrote:
> On Wed, 2018-06-27 at 18:18 -0400, Josh Boyer wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 4:30 PM Adam Williamson > > <adamw...@fedoraproject.org> 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. > > So I may have missed the latest shiny plans here - I thought the plan > 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@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org 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@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/BLKXTF4K3WZPM2ZHHDAWTBKJIMMUXXG3/
