On Thu, Jun 28, 2018 at 1:35 AM, Adam Williamson <adamwill(a)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
> > <adamwill(a)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.