Am 02.01.2014 23:29, schrieb Martin Langhoff:
On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 5:21 PM, Reindl Harald
<h.reindl(a)thelounge.net> wrote:
> with my software-developer hat on the opposite is true
I discussed yum internals quite a bit with Seth in past years. Every
change I proposed met a wall of backwards compatibility. Turns out
that there are many very specific corner cases, and yum has it on its
shoulders to not mess with them.
that's the difference of a change between a complete rewrite having the
supported end-product with it'fs features in mind
AIUI, the yum team has refactored quite a bit in place, and
that's
what you seem to be referring to.
i did not speak about refactoring
i spoke about a complete rewrite as it happens but with not start
with a limited feature set to make things easier at the start and
finally end at the same problems some years later
dnf is a chance to drop some of that backwards compat and move
forward
and where does throw away existing code while start from scratch
means that you need to throw away features and bahvior too instead
only get rid of the old codebase?
Users (usually corporate) that have a rigid need of the old
behavior can continue to use yum for as it is maintained; and it is
likely that RH would keep it maintained for a long time.
which does say nothing about Fedora
I expect yum to continue to live as the backwards compat tool, even
as
dnf takes center stage.
maybe, maybe not
sysvinit was also in the F15 repos and not use/installable
Please respect that others may have knowledge and experience that
you
don't, you are coming across as rather argumentative
please respect that you know not much about my knowledge
i maintain a large-codebase which started long before Fedora existed
for some hundret instances and did rewrites of many components over
the last 10 years without taking the enduser notice
it takes more time, but the result have few to no compromises and at
no point in time any existing user was disappointed