2014-06-11 17:20 GMT+02:00 Jan Zelený <jzeleny@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