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.
josh