2014-06-11 17:20 GMT+02:00 Jan Zelený <jzeleny(a)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