On 18 January 2016 at 01:32, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek <zbys...@in.waw.pl> wrote: > On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 12:55:54AM +0100, Heiko Adams wrote: >> But it seems to be broken since Feb 2015, which is IMHO unacceptable >> since a default package manager and all of its features have to work >> absolutely reliable. > > When was the last time you saw a program bigger then /bin/true that was > "absolutely reliable"? Your implicit premise that yum was bug free > is completely bogus, just look for yum bugs in bugzilla [1]. >
xz tar cp ... Being reliable might be difficult, but it is achievable, and the more core a tool is the more important it is that it approaches reliability. > It seems that with dnf we are currently in the phase of fine-tuning > user interaction. The resolver works nicely, there is a growing system > of plugins based on a stable API, the codebase was ported to the > current version of python, speed is decent most of the time... There > *are* things to fix, but calling for the return of yum is a complete > waste of the time of everbody on this list. > So there's no need to fight hyperbole with hyperbole. -- imalone http://ibmalone.blogspot.co.uk -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
