Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

DNF 1.0 Released, Declared Stable Package Manager For Fedora

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • DNF 1.0 Released, Declared Stable Package Manager For Fedora

    Phoronix: DNF 1.0 Released, Declared Stable Package Manager For Fedora

    The day is coming where DNF is replacing Yum as the default package manager on Fedora Linux. DNF 1.0 was just released today to mark the point of stability and it being ready to take over Yum's responsibilities with the upcoming Fedora 22 release...

    http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?pag...ver-Yum-Fedora

  • #2
    is it just as slow as yum?

    Comment


    • #3
      Mostly, I used it a while ago and couldn't tell the difference. And it still used annoying defaults like before executing some commands it tries to download data from the internet (unlike apt-cache) which is annoying as fuck and the -C doesn't work properly.
      So, apt-get and apt-cache are better imo.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by mark45 View Post
        Nah, I used it a while ago and couldn't tell the difference. And it still used annoying defaults like before executing some commands it tries to download data from the internet (unlike apt-cache) which is annoying as fuck and the -C doesn't work properly.
        So, apt-get and apt-cache are better imo.
        Everything about Fedora has "annoying defaults."

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by mark45 View Post
          Mostly, I used it a while ago and couldn't tell the difference. And it still used annoying defaults like before executing some commands it tries to download data from the internet (unlike apt-cache) which is annoying as fuck and the -C doesn't work properly.
          So, apt-get and apt-cache are better imo.
          Not sure what you problem you had with caching and I don't see any bug reports filed but in case, dnf has a timer that updates the metadata async everyday and has a longer time for metadata expiry so you shouldn't have the problem.

          Comment


          • #6
            The metadata thing never really bothered me that much. It really doesn't take that long. And I don't like how apt-get sometimes messes with configuration, for example setting a daemon to start at boot time.

            Comment


            • #7
              Linux distros SERIOUSLY need to switch to something like nix (or just adopt nix). It's 2015 and we have strong coupling between shared libraries, which make software updates a nightmare. People shouldn't have to use rolling distros just to get new versions of apps.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by garegin View Post
                Linux distros SERIOUSLY need to switch to something like nix (or just adopt nix). It's 2015 and we have strong coupling between shared libraries, which make software updates a nightmare. People shouldn't have to use rolling distros just to get new versions of apps.
                There are multiple such efforts. Example:

                https://wiki.gnome.org/Projects/SandboxedApps

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by peppercats View Post
                  is it just as slow as yum?
                  Where is this notion coming from? in my personal experience yum has always been one of the faster package managers. Meanwhile apt because of dpkg has always been the one that is slow as hell, although nothing is slower than emerge (portage).

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    I thought it is Duke Nukem Forever, but no. Fyi pacman is fast if you ask me. apt and other ubuntu package managers are slow. taking forever to install apps.

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X