On Tue, Jul 07, 2020 at 10:09:52AM +0200, Dan Čermák wrote:
(the following is my personal opinion/view)
Carson Black <uhhadd@gmail.com> writes:
Lately, I've become somewhat displeased by a lot of shortcomings of the libzypp stack in regards to how it serves openSUSE.
In condensed list form, my complaints are: - zypp using external binaries for tasks (rpm, repo2solv) causes updates that change those binaries to be be particularly unstable
Especially zypper subprocessing to call rpm is downright dangerous and caused a few issues when the database format of rpmdb changes (does not happen often, but we've had a recent one from BDB to NDB).
Ooh, be careful with that argument. Database format changes are not really supported by rpm/dnf at all. It took me quite some time to get it in a somewhat working state, but the pull request was never merged upstream. [snip]
Well, and then there's the elephant in the room: dnf is a Fedora (and thus a RedHat) product, while zypper is SUSE's child. Just because of that it's going to be a rocky road and it will probably take ages or be downright impossible to push dnf as the default to SLE (zypper has a lot of SLE specific handling, for example packagehub integration).
There's another elephant: dnf is currently getting completely rewritten. You shouldn't even think about changing to it unless that has been completed. Cheers, Michael. -- Michael Schroeder SUSE Software Solutions Germany GmbH mls@suse.de GF: Felix Imendoerffer HRB 36809, AG Nuernberg main(_){while(_=~getchar())putchar(~_-1/(~(_|32)/13*2-11)*13);} -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org