On 12. 6. 2014 at 11:41:52, Simo Sorce wrote:
On Thu, 2014-06-12 at 17:13 +0200, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
> 2014-06-12 17:03 GMT+02:00 Rahul Sundaram <metherid(a)gmail.com>:
> > On Thu, Jun 12, 2014 at 10:29 AM, Jan Zelený wrote:
> >> We are on the same page, thanks for your input.
> >
> > I don't think so. You are clearly arguing for a temporary compatibility
> > wrapper but eventually forcing everyone to use dnf as the command.
The
> > other side is wanting yum to continue to remain the name
for the
command
> > with yum-legacy for temporary transition. In otherwords,
dnf is an
> > internal project name and doesn't need to be exposed to the user.
>
> There are not only two sides :) I don’t insist on dnf being a hidden
> “internal project name”; introducing new features (only?) under the dnf
> name is fine with me. I do object to planning to unnecessarily break the
> yum commands for which we actually have compatibility.
We can keep the yum symlink forever...
Definitely, we do no insist on removing it. I am perfectly fine with removing it
some time far in the future when nobody uses it any more.
Thanks
Jan