On Fri, 2014-06-13 at 14:53 +0200, Jan Zelený wrote:
> So not wanting users to complain about “yum” no longer having
some
features
> is the only reason for dropping the yum name I have seen in this thread
> (also called “setting expectations”); have I missed other reasons?
No, there is not. But I think you misunderstood the reason, although not by
much. The fact is that dnf *is* different project than yum, let's not try to
mask it. The vast majority of code base is different (> 85% for sure), its
architecture is different, the community is different, the entire nature of the
project is different. And the fact that its CLI interface tries to be as
compatible as possible with yum doesn't change any of this.
I understand that you want to rename the project to show that it is a
new thing, but do users of yum really care about these facts? Do as a
user you really care if bind 9 was a total rewrite of bind 8? I believe
you overestimate how much users of software care about the inner
workings.
That being said, the reason for not renaming dnf to yum is that
renaming this
project to yum will do nothing else than to confuse its users, as they will
think this is still yum and they should expect from dnf it what they expected
from yum.
I again think you overestimate what users think of software. They don't
think of yum as a particular code-base. Yum is the tool, like hammer is
the tool. If you replace a hammer by a new redesigned hammer, it is
still a hammer even if not 100% identical.
regards,
Nikos