OK, so here's the thing:

While the original yum-3 stack is really gone, the "yum" package in particular remains; it was just bumped to version 4 and its contents replaced by a few symlinks (/usr/bin/yum etc.).

Our purpose is to communicate to the users that all that's happening here is that yum-3 is being upgraded to yum-4 (a.k.a dnf). However, the users are still encouraged to use /usr/bin/dnf directly (the yum-4 package is really meant just as a backward-compatible layer to allow people to re-use their scripts and muscle memory since dnf maintains CLI compatibility with yum-3 to a great degree).

The other packages listed here are really gone.

I would maybe note that, in case of createrepo and yum-utils, the equivalents are createrepo_c and dnf-utils, respectively.

Would messaging such as the following be good to include?

"The purpose of this is to minimize the disruption to users as the YUM 3 user experience transitions to use the more advanced DNF technology. We welcome and appreciate anyone who opens issues or bugzillas to inform us of any critical user experience or plugin problems that might have been missed."

Hi Jaroslav,

I brought this up with the team today, and we came to the conclusion that, after all, going with the original version of the RN (the one with the list of packages to be removed, including "yum") would probably be better.

The reason is, we do want to emphasize that "yum", as people know it, is really going away from Fedora, and that the new "yum" package is there just for compatibility reasons.

In addition to that, we would still like the RN to mention the presence of the "yum" package. Terry suggested a great way to do that in the previous comment.

That said, I'd like to ask you to consider making yet another change to this PR to accommodate the above suggestions. And I'm really sorry for confusing you with my initial feedback :)

Let me know if you need anything else.

Thanks!

Would messaging such as the following be good to include?
"The purpose of this is to minimize the disruption to users as the YUM 3 user experience transitions to use the more advanced DNF technology. We welcome and appreciate anyone who opens issues or bugzillas to inform us of any critical user experience or plugin problems that might have been missed."

Terry, just to clarify: Did you mean this as a general note regarding the removal of the yum3 stack, or was it to explain why the "yum" package (though in version 4) remains available?

Would messaging such as the following be good to include?
"The purpose of this is to minimize the disruption to users as the YUM 3 user experience transitions to use the more advanced DNF technology. We welcome and appreciate anyone who opens issues or bugzillas to inform us of any critical user experience or plugin problems that might have been missed."

Terry, just to clarify: Did you mean this as a general note regarding the removal of the yum3 stack, or was it to explain why the "yum" package (though in version 4) remains available?

Hi Michal,

if something needs to be updated, just let me know.

Regards,
quiet

@quiet Looks good to me. One thing, though: Could you maybe incorporate somehow a note saying that the "yum" package is still available in the repos (as a tiny CLI wrapper) for people who'd like to use the original /usr/bin/yum binary? I'm just worried that people would get confused when they discover the "yum" package despite it being mentioned as being removed.

Merged manually.