On Thu, 2014-06-12 at 17:13 +0200, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
2014-06-12 17:03 GMT+02:00 Rahul Sundaram
<metherid(a)gmail.com>:
> On Thu, Jun 12, 2014 at 10:29 AM, Jan Zelený wrote:
>
>>
>> We are on the same page, thanks for your input.
>>
>
> I don't think so. You are clearly arguing for a temporary compatibility
> wrapper but eventually forcing everyone to use dnf as the command. The
> other side is wanting yum to continue to remain the name for the command
> with yum-legacy for temporary transition. In otherwords, dnf is an
> internal project name and doesn't need to be exposed to the user.
>
There are not only two sides :) I don’t insist on dnf being a hidden
“internal project name”; introducing new features (only?) under the dnf
name is fine with me. I do object to planning to unnecessarily break the
yum commands for which we actually have compatibility.
We can keep the yum symlink forever...
I am for a clear break with dnf having its own name.
Using yum as the name for dnf is just a lie to the user and is not
helpful.
Dnf is a completely different project and code base that just happens to
be highly compatible with yum as a way to smooth the transition. That is
perfectly fine, and not spreading lies is an excellent strategy to
slowly educate users.
The service -> systemctl example is actually an excellent example of a
smooth transition IMO, and should be followed.
If you like yum you keep the compat package, if you hate it: dnf remove
yum-compat and be happy.
Simo.
--
Simo Sorce * Red Hat, Inc * New York