On Mon, 2014-01-06 at 09:26 +0100, Lars E. Pettersson wrote:
On 01/06/2014 08:13 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Mon, 2014-01-06 at 08:01 +0100, Lars E. Pettersson wrote:
On 01/06/2014 12:46 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
...
If it exists for backward compatibility, it doesn't necessarily need to be documented.
Ehh? Why? Could you elaborate?
I don't see what needs elaborating. I'm not aware that the 11th commandment is "Every Subcommand Must Be Documented, Even Ones You Just Put In So People Still Using Syntax From The Old Tool You're Replacing Won't Have A Problem". If that's the only reason a synonym of a documented subcommand exists, what's the point of documenting it? Anyone who needs it doesn't need documentation to find it - that's the *point*, if they were going to read the documentation, they'd know the *new* subcommand - and anyone who reads the documentation doesn't stand to gain anything from learning that a subcommand has a synonym for backwards compatibility purposes. So, why go to the trouble?
The reason for me asking was that you accused me of "excoriating the dnf devs" (a rather harsh accusation) just because I did not try erase/remove. I looked at the documentation and used auto completion. Why would I try a number of different sub-commands if they were not documented?
Because you're suggesting that they no longer exist? Making sure the thing you claim no longer exists *actually no longer exists* seems like a pre-requisite of making such a claim.
If a thing is not documented, it does not exist.
No, I think you're confused. If it's not documented, it's not documented. If it doesn't exist, it doesn't exist. Two different conditions, see. One related to existence. One to documentation. ;)
The first rule of documenting. If it exist, but is mot documented, there's a fault in the documentation. Even if the sub-commands are there for backward compatibility, they need to be documented for people to find them.
Um. No. No they don't. I've been running 'dnf remove' for weeks.