On 11. 6. 2014 at 18:53:36, Miloslav Trmač wrote: > 2014-06-11 15:02 GMT+02:00 Rahul Sundaram <methe...@gmail.com>: > > I strongly agree with this for practical reasons. There is no good > > rationale for moving away from yum as the name of the command except some > > of the command line changes which happened with yum anyway (download only > > was added and later removed for example) and one can warn specifically for > > those. > > Yeah, if the compatibility is there, it should *just be there*. Software > is here to server users, so the appropriate thing to do on (yum update) is > to update the system, not to use this as an appropriate moment to > essentially advertise users about a new project or about our achievements > (even though the dnf project *is* an achievement, don’t get me wrong). > > It makes sense to only add new features to the (dnf) command, or to > warn/fail when the yum compatibility doesn’t actually exist. But when the > compatibility exists, the right thing for the users is to just do what was > asked, no questions asked.
And indeed it will do what you asked it to do. You will just receive warning that yum is no more and the command should not be used. Again, it's exactly the same what happens when you call service XYZ start and in my opinion it works like a charm. If not for this warning, I'd never learned about systemctl. > (Structurally, this would also allow you to separate the compatibility UI > hacks in /usr/bin/yum, keeping /usr/bin/dnf a bit more clean.) We plan to have /usr/bin/yum as simple as possible. Just print out a warning and redirect to yum, something like that. As I wrote before, if you want it to do anything else, we welcome the patches. Thanks Jan -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
