On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 05:01:14PM +0200, Daniel Mach wrote:
>
> What's the benefit in changing to be compatible with YUM as opposed
> to stickin with current alogorithm ?
>
If a user migrates from RHEL 7 to the next version of RHEL (or CentOS),
there will be continuity in used algorithm and history db checksums.
It's important to some enterprise customers to keep the history db in a
good shape.
Fedora users don't care about that much in general.
Creating incompatibilties for Fedora users to benefit RHEL users is
not a very compelling argument to me.
> Surely if we don't change it, even fewer users will notice
that DNF's
> behaviour is different from YUM's, since DNF has been the default for
> many releases now.
>
> I could understand the motiviation to stay compatible with YUM if we
> were only just about to switch Fedora from YUM to DNF, but time is
> way in the past now. Shouldn't we optimize for the fact that DNF is
> the more widely deployed & used tool, and thus not worry about
> YUM compatibility in respect of the history DB ?
>
Unfortunately RHEL knows nothing about DNF yet
and it's YUM compatibility what matters.
If DNF looks at the previous transaction and sees the checksum doesn't
match that of the new transaction, could it fallback to re-calculate the
checksum with the old algorithm and retry validation. It can then continue
to use its current algorithm from that point onwards.
Regards,
Daniel
--
|:
https://berrange.com -o-
https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange :|
|:
https://libvirt.org -o-
https://fstop138.berrange.com :|
|:
https://entangle-photo.org -o-
https://www.instagram.com/dberrange :|