On 12. 6. 2014 at 10:09:13, Chuck Anderson wrote:
On Thu, Jun 12, 2014 at 02:10:22PM +0200, Jan Zelený wrote:
> > > We are open to ideas. I think in this situation there is no perfect
> > > way
> > > how to satisfy everyone. We have thought about this for several
> > > months.
> > > Renaming dnf back to yum might seem like the best option at first (it
> > > was
> > > our original plan too) but when you carefully and deeply think about
> > > this, keeping dnf and yum separate is really the least painful choice.
> > > So
> > > far I haven't seen a single strong argument against it that would
> > > satisfy
> > > needs of all the involved stakeholders.
> >
> > Well having user that upgrade have a different package manager then
> > those who install new is not only "not perfect" but a no go.
> > Simple obsolete yum so that dnf gets pulled in on upgrades and have
> > rename the yum package to yum-legacy or something and have users
that
> > want it for whatever reason install it by hand.
>
> I think this is is alignment with what I said before - yum and dnf will
> still stay separated and dnf is not renamed. So if there is no argument
> against your proposal, we might as well give it a shot.
The arguments against renaming the command have been given. The dnf
command should either be renamed back to yum, or there should be
permanent backwards compatibility via a script, symlink, etc. There
is NO good reason to force everyone to change scripts and command line
habits just for the sake of changing the name of a command that is an
almost 100% compatible evolution of the older command. Call the
package dnf and obsolete the yum package, rename the old yum package
to yum-legacy--fine. But please make "yum install" etc. still work
with dnf.
We are on the same page, thanks for your input.
Jan