Neal Gompa: > > Regarding these two questions: > > > >>> Are there any concerns about such change? > >>> I believe that >90% users wouldn't notice anything as it's related to the > >>> history database only. > > > >> On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 10:01 AM Igor Gnatenko > >> <ignatenkobr...@fedoraproject.org> wrote: > >> Since we've changed the database entirely, what's the point of keeping > >> same algorithm for calculating checksum? > > > >> On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 9:34 AM Daniel P. Berrangé <berra...@redhat.com> > >> wrote: > >> What's the benefit in changing to be compatible with YUM as opposed > >> to stickin with current alogorithm ? > >> > >> Surely if we don't change it, even fewer users will notice that DNF's > >> behaviour is different from YUM's, since DNF has been the default for > >> many releases now. > >> > >> I could understand the motiviation to stay compatible with YUM if we > >> were only just about to switch Fedora from YUM to DNF, but time is > >> way in the past now. Shouldn't we optimize for the fact that DNF is > >> the more widely deployed & used tool, and thus not worry about > >> YUM compatibility in respect of the history DB ? > > > > It is true that going forward in the Fedora world it matters less. It is > > more of an impact for yum-3 compatibility as yum4/dnf is being considered > > in the RHEL7/CentOS7 userspace environments as described at > > https://blog.centos.org/2018/04/yum4-dnf-for-centos-7-updates/ > > > > Currently yum version 3 and what the proof-of-concept project is calling > > yum4 work very well together side by side. Users can safely switch back > > and forth. The major problem is yum/dnf histories being different and the > > rpmdb checksum difference is a blocker for resolving the history > > compatibility. > > > > So think of this as an effort to bring package management parity between > > Fedora, RHEL 7, & CentOS7, as the latter two still have a long life ahead > > of them. > > > > Is there a reason why we can't change YUM to match the DNF behavior? > IMO, the YUM behavior is nonsense and isn't even a valid package > identifier.
Actually E:N-V-R.A is yum-ism no one else understand while N-E:V-R.A is correct rpm format. $ rpm -q bind-libs bind-libs-9.9.4-61.el7.x86_64 $ rpm -q 32:bind-libs-9.9.4-61.el7.x86_64 package 32:bind-libs-9.9.4-61.el7.x86_64 is not installed $ rpm -q bind-libs-32:9.9.4-61.el7.x86_64 bind-libs-9.9.4-61.el7.x86_64 So if you want make world a better place stick with current dnf format. -- Michael Mráka System Management Engineering, Red Hat _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/KXLUGD7446XWI4TS2ITKQ2JPUAGHEF5S/
