Re: RFC: retiring yum

2017-09-04 Thread Adam Williamson
On Mon, 2017-09-04 at 11:54 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote: > On Mon, 2017-09-04 at 20:37 +0200, Igor Gnatenko wrote: > > > Some of those are false positives (just names for things that are > > > actually moved to dnf), but a lot of them are actual usage of the yum > > > module. > > > > Pungi in

Re: RFC: retiring yum

2017-09-04 Thread Adam Williamson
On Mon, 2017-09-04 at 20:37 +0200, Igor Gnatenko wrote: > > Some of those are false positives (just names for things that are > > actually moved to dnf), but a lot of them are actual usage of the yum > > module. > > Pungi in rawhide uses DNF backend for gathering, so irrelevant..  I don't

Re: RFC: retiring yum

2017-09-04 Thread Igor Gnatenko
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On Mon, 2017-09-04 at 09:25 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote: > On Fri, 2017-09-01 at 19:01 +0200, Igor Gnatenko wrote: > > So I think F28/F29 would be best time for retiring YUM. Right now > > DNF > > should be already stable and provide same

Re: RFC: retiring yum

2017-09-04 Thread Till Maas
Hi, On Mon, Sep 04, 2017 at 12:22:27PM +0200, Vít Ondruch wrote: > Interesting. I already requested something like this previously [1], but > had not good enough use case for it ... May be you want to recycle my > ticket? There is now an accepted upstream ticket, the patch is still missing,

Re: RFC: retiring yum

2017-09-04 Thread Adam Williamson
On Fri, 2017-09-01 at 19:01 +0200, Igor Gnatenko wrote: > So I think F28/F29 would be best time for retiring YUM. Right now DNF > should be already stable and provide same capabilities (or documented > that something will not be supported). > > Hopefully infrastructure / rel-eng folks will

Re: RFC: retiring yum

2017-09-04 Thread Adam Williamson
On Fri, 2017-09-01 at 21:19 +0200, Igor Gnatenko wrote: > While I agree that this is missing functionality, being honest I think > we should educate users to use updateinfo which is meant for users > while changelogs might be interested only for developers. Updateinfo is > coming from what is

Re: RFC: retiring yum

2017-09-04 Thread Dennis Gilmore
El vie, 01-09-2017 a las 21:19 +0200, Igor Gnatenko escribió: > On Fri, 2017-09-01 at 13:56 -0400, Neal Gompa wrote: > > On Fri, Sep 1, 2017 at 1:01 PM, Igor Gnatenko > > wrote: > > > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > > > Hash: SHA256 > > > > > > So I think

Re: RFC: retiring yum

2017-09-04 Thread Pavel Valena
- Original Message - > From: "Pete Travis" <li...@petetravis.com> > To: "Development discussions related to Fedora" > <devel@lists.fedoraproject.org> > Sent: Saturday, September 2, 2017 4:08:54 PM > Subject: Re: RFC: retiring yum >

Re: RFC: retiring yum

2017-09-04 Thread Richard Shaw
On Fri, Sep 1, 2017 at 3:10 PM, Hedayat Vatankhah wrote: > Hi, > > *Igor Gnatenko* wrote on Fri, 01 Sep 2017 19:01:49 +0200: > > <..> > Do you still have some critical missing functionality in DNF? And let > us know reasons why would you like to keep YUM available

Re: RFC: retiring yum

2017-09-04 Thread Vít Ondruch
Dne 2.9.2017 v 16:00 Neal Gompa napsal(a): > On Fri, Sep 1, 2017 at 1:01 PM, Igor Gnatenko > wrote: >> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- >> Hash: SHA256 >> >> So I think F28/F29 would be best time for retiring YUM. Right now DNF >> should be already stable and

Re: RFC: retiring yum

2017-09-04 Thread Vít Ondruch
Dne 1.9.2017 v 19:56 Neal Gompa napsal(a): > On Fri, Sep 1, 2017 at 1:01 PM, Igor Gnatenko > wrote: >> Do you still have some critical missing functionality in DNF? And let >> us know reasons why would you like to keep YUM available (hopefully >> there are no)!

Re: RFC: retiring yum

2017-09-04 Thread Miroslav Suchý
Dne 1.9.2017 v 22:10 Hedayat Vatankhah napsal(a): > [1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1091702 This is blocker for me as well. Mirek ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to

Re: RFC: retiring yum

2017-09-04 Thread Zdenek Kabelac
Dne 2.9.2017 v 16:00 Neal Gompa napsal(a): On Fri, Sep 1, 2017 at 1:01 PM, Igor Gnatenko wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 So I think F28/F29 would be best time for retiring YUM. Right now DNF should be already stable and provide same

Re: RFC: retiring yum

2017-09-02 Thread Pete Travis
On Sep 1, 2017 4:54 PM, "Kai Bojens" wrote: On Friday, 1 September 2017 21:30:44 CEST Matthew Miller wrote: > RPM specfile changelogs are often of interest to systems > administrators. Agreed. Before I update a huge number of hosts I'd like to check the changelogs for any

Re: RFC: retiring yum

2017-09-02 Thread Neal Gompa
On Fri, Sep 1, 2017 at 1:01 PM, Igor Gnatenko wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA256 > > So I think F28/F29 would be best time for retiring YUM. Right now DNF > should be already stable and provide same capabilities (or documented > that

Re: RFC: retiring yum

2017-09-01 Thread Neal Gompa
On Sep 1, 2017 3:31 PM, "Matthew Miller" wrote: On Fri, Sep 01, 2017 at 09:19:24PM +0200, Igor Gnatenko wrote: > > There is still one thing I've noticed we're missing: API and CLI for > > getting package changelogs[1]. This exists in yum but doesn't in dnf. > While I

Re: RFC: retiring yum

2017-09-01 Thread Yanko Kaneti
On Fri, 2017-09-01 at 13:30 -0500, Ian Pilcher wrote: > On 09/01/2017 12:01 PM, Igor Gnatenko wrote: > > Do you still have some critical missing functionality in DNF? And > > let > > us know reasons why would you like to keep YUM available (hopefully > > there are no)! > > AFAIK there is still no

Re: RFC: retiring yum

2017-09-01 Thread Kai Bojens
On Friday, 1 September 2017 21:30:44 CEST Matthew Miller wrote: > RPM specfile changelogs are often of interest to systems > administrators. Agreed. Before I update a huge number of hosts I'd like to check the changelogs for any possible trouble. This is the the main thing I miss in dnf right

Re: RFC: retiring yum

2017-09-01 Thread Mathieu Bridon
On Fri, 2017-09-01 at 15:00 -0500, Ian Pilcher wrote: > On 09/01/2017 02:21 PM, Igor Gnatenko wrote: > > This is true and we have plans to implement this, but problem is > > that > > we don't know how to represent data. When it is about installing > > some > > packages -- it's more or less easy to

Re: RFC: retiring yum

2017-09-01 Thread Hedayat Vatankhah
Hi, /*Igor Gnatenko*/ wrote on Fri, 01 Sep 2017 19:01:49 +0200: <..> Do you still have some critical missing functionality in DNF? And let us know reasons why would you like to keep YUM available (hopefully there are no)! I've not tried 'dnf remove --duplicates' yet, but if it behaves similar

Re: RFC: retiring yum

2017-09-01 Thread Ian Pilcher
On 09/01/2017 02:21 PM, Igor Gnatenko wrote: This is true and we have plans to implement this, but problem is that we don't know how to represent data. When it is about installing some packages -- it's more or less easy to show, but when upgrades / downgrades are involved it becomes way more

Re: RFC: retiring yum

2017-09-01 Thread Matthew Miller
On Fri, Sep 01, 2017 at 09:19:24PM +0200, Igor Gnatenko wrote: > > There is still one thing I've noticed we're missing: API and CLI for > > getting package changelogs[1]. This exists in yum but doesn't in dnf. > While I agree that this is missing functionality, being honest I think > we should

Re: RFC: retiring yum

2017-09-01 Thread Igor Gnatenko
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On Fri, 2017-09-01 at 13:30 -0500, Ian Pilcher wrote: > On 09/01/2017 12:01 PM, Igor Gnatenko wrote: > > Do you still have some critical missing functionality in DNF? And > > let > > us know reasons why would you like to keep YUM available

Re: RFC: retiring yum

2017-09-01 Thread Igor Gnatenko
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On Fri, 2017-09-01 at 13:56 -0400, Neal Gompa wrote: > On Fri, Sep 1, 2017 at 1:01 PM, Igor Gnatenko > wrote: > > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > > Hash: SHA256 > > > > So I think F28/F29 would be best time

Re: RFC: retiring yum

2017-09-01 Thread Fernando Nasser
On 2017-09-01 2:52 PM, Matthew Miller wrote: On Fri, Sep 01, 2017 at 02:38:59PM -0400, Fernando Nasser wrote: 1) Can we use existing repositories created with yum createrepo with dnf? Yes. 2) Are "groups" supported?  (E.g.: yum instalgroup xxx) Yes. Thanks Matthew.  I guess it will be just

Re: RFC: retiring yum

2017-09-01 Thread Matthew Miller
On Fri, Sep 01, 2017 at 02:38:59PM -0400, Fernando Nasser wrote: > 1) Can we use existing repositories created with yum createrepo with dnf? Yes. > 2) Are "groups" supported?  (E.g.: yum instalgroup xxx) Yes. -- Matthew Miller Fedora Project Leader

Re: RFC: retiring yum

2017-09-01 Thread Fernando Nasser
On 2017-09-01 1:01 PM, Igor Gnatenko wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 So I think F28/F29 would be best time for retiring YUM. Right now DNF should be already stable and provide same capabilities (or documented that something will not be supported). Hopefully

Re: RFC: retiring yum

2017-09-01 Thread Ian Pilcher
On 09/01/2017 12:01 PM, Igor Gnatenko wrote: Do you still have some critical missing functionality in DNF? And let us know reasons why would you like to keep YUM available (hopefully there are no)! AFAIK there is still no way to get dependency information out of DNF. (There may be a way to do

Re: RFC: retiring yum

2017-09-01 Thread Neal Gompa
On Fri, Sep 1, 2017 at 1:01 PM, Igor Gnatenko wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA256 > > So I think F28/F29 would be best time for retiring YUM. Right now DNF > should be already stable and provide same capabilities (or documented > that

RFC: retiring yum

2017-09-01 Thread Igor Gnatenko
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 So I think F28/F29 would be best time for retiring YUM. Right now DNF should be already stable and provide same capabilities (or documented that something will not be supported). Hopefully infrastructure / rel-eng folks will finally add support for