Details Of DNF Succeeding Yum In Fedora 22 Still Being Discussed

[phoronix]

Phoronix: Details Of DNF Succeeding Yum In Fedora 22 Still Being Discussed

With the upcoming release of Fedora 22, DNF is succeeding Yum as the default package manager. However, some details about this change are still being discussed...

http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=DNF-Fedora-22-Yum-Concerns

[Guest]

Wasn't aware dnf existed; guess I better start getting used to it over yum.

[nanonyme]

Phoronix: Details Of DNF Succeeding Yum In Fedora 22 Still Being Discussed

With the upcoming release of Fedora 22, DNF is succeeding Yum as the default package manager. However, some details about this change are still being discussed...

http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?pag...2-Yum-Concerns

The controversial bit isn't really the warning per se but that dnf-yum package causes yum to be redirected to dnf

[Ericg]

Wasn't aware dnf existed; guess I better start getting used to it over yum.

You new to Phoronix, Espionage, or just don't check regularly? I ask because Michael is pretty on-top of DNF news so it'd take a lot to not know it existed

[edmon]

After rpm , yum and now dnf it is obvious that the problem is not the package manager but the package type itself.

[RahulSundaram]

After rpm , yum and now dnf it is obvious that the problem is not the package manager but the package type itself.

There is apt, aptitude, smart, cupt, wajig and so on, it is clearly a problem with that package format as well, right?

[droidhacker]

WTF???

DNF was a *nonsense* name given to a FORK of YUM so that the packages would not conflict if both were installed on the same system. The *PLAN* was supposed to be to resume use of the name YUM once it became no longer necessary for the two to be able to coexist. The name DNF is/was supposed to DIE.


DNF: Did Not Finish.
Its finished now, so that does not apply.

[finalzone]

After rpm , yum and now dnf it is obvious that the problem is not the package manager but the package type itself.

It is like saying in Debian based system

After dpkg , apt-get and now aptitude it is obvious that the problem is not the package manager but the package type itself.

Apply the same logic on other source based distributions and see how that sentence is silly.Now back to the topic.

[Ericg]

WTF???

DNF was a *nonsense* name given to a FORK of YUM so that the packages would not conflict if both were installed on the same system. The *PLAN* was supposed to be to resume use of the name YUM once it became no longer necessary for the two to be able to coexist. The name DNF is/was supposed to DIE.


DNF: Did Not Finish.
Its finished now, so that does not apply.

DNF never stood for "Did Not Finish." I get that its used in other circles as standing for that, but I never saw the name "DNF" and thought "did not finish." They probably haven't switched it to be 'yum' because of compatibility concerns where DNF changed functionality / output and if an old script calls the new DNF-ized yum it'll fail and no one will know why.

[droidhacker]

DNF never stood for "Did Not Finish." I get that its used in other circles as standing for that, but I never saw the name "DNF" and thought "did not finish." They probably haven't switched it to be 'yum' because of compatibility concerns where DNF changed functionality / output and if an old script calls the new DNF-ized yum it'll fail and no one will know why.

The fedora wiki specifically refers to it as "nonsense", and the only reference to it IS "did not finish", therefore conclude whatever you like.

Regardless, the original intention remains the same.

Can't imagine why you think that nobody would know why an old script fails. And it isn't like replacing yum with a bash script that calls dnf would solve that anyway.

Content of the current 'yum' command:

executable="/usr/bin/dnf"
msg="Yum command has been deprecated, use dnf instead.\n"\
"See 'man dnf' and 'man yum2dnf' for more information.\n"\
"To transfer transaction metadata from yum to DNF, run 'dnf migrate'"\
"Redirecting to '$executable $@'\n"
echo -e $msg >&2
exec $executable "$@"