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.
BTW it would also help if you sketched out what is the timeline and
process to deprecate DNF 4.x.
Vít
Dne 19. 12. 22 v 16:24 Vít Ondruch napsal(a):
Thx for heads up. I assume this is the diff:
https://fedoraproject.org/w/index.php?title=Changes%2FReplaceDnfWithDnf5&...
Vít
Dne 16. 12. 22 v 12:11 Jaroslav Mracek napsal(a):
> I've rewritten the proposal to make it clear what it is about
> including additional information that were unknown before. I hope
> that I've addressed community suggestions and remove the confusion
> with original proposal. Please feel free to comment the new proposal
> and discuss the new content of the proposal.
> _______________________________________________
> devel mailing list -- devel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
> 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@lists.fedoraproject.org
> Do not reply to spam, report it:
>
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue