2014-06-11 17:20 GMT+02:00 Jan Zelený <jzel...@redhat.com>:
> Also, dnf
> > needs to drop all the legacy options before the transition (ie) pick
> erase
> > or remove (preferably the latter) etc rather than retain all the
> > compatibility options.
>
> The transition period is one reason why we want to keep the name dnf.
The compatibility options can be kept in /usr/bin/yum without cluttering up
/usr/bin/dnf.
> Also presenting dnf as a separate project forked from yum gives us better
> flexibility - for instance it's easier to drop obsoleted stuff because
> users
> don't have that high compatibility expectations.
>
That’s a pure illusion. The users have a compatibility expectation that *their
software will continue working*. Compared to asking the users to notice
and work around removal of “obsoleted stuff” in /usr/bin/yum, asking the
users to notice and work around removal of “obsoleted stuff” in
/usr/bin/yum *and in addition to change the command name in their scripts*
is, AFAICT, just making things worse.
Mirek
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
