3 ms·
Out of curiosity, why not fix something if broken? Why is there is always a half baked alternative that has a different set of problems. Instead of replacing wh
by istvan__ 11y ago
Out of curiosity, why not fix something if broken? Why is there is always a half baked alternative that has a different set of problems. Instead of replacing what is perceived broken you can just fix it also keeping the good parts. I have several systems deeply vested in in the yum/rpm ecosystem and I see very little chance that a new package manager is going to offer that much new features that I need while keeping the features I already like from yum.
From the article:
"undocumented API, broken dependency solving algorithm and inability to refactor internal functions. The last mentioned issue is connected with the lack of documentation. "
Well some of them I don't care about as a user of yum some of them I can verify not true (documentation) and some of them I care about and it works for my use-cases (dependency solving algorithm).
- rwmj 11y agodnf is a very heavily modified yum. Parts of dnf have a Duke University copyright (because Duke was the place yum came from originally). They took the opportunity to do a very big rewrite however so a lot of code has changed, and the command line is also quite a bit different.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- TheLoneWolfling 11y agoIt's the CADT model of software development, as usual. http://www.jwz.org/doc/cadt.html http://www.jwz.org/doc/cadt.html
- Dewie3 11y agoIt's kind of sad if most programmers think that debugging isn't fun. I thought that was a very large part of the programming process? Or maybe people just do OSS in order to re-balance their programming more to the side of clean-slate programming.
- TheLoneWolfling 11y agoSome debugging can be fun. But not all of it. There are always things that won't be fun, and those are the things that get kicked to the curb.