/etc/yum.repos.d -> /etc/distro.repos.d

I am curious whether we can move our repo files from

In Fedora 31 we are going to wipe away last left overs of YUM, so it really does not have sense to keep `yum.repos.d`.

DNF for ages parse config files from:
{"/etc/yum.repos.d", "/etc/yum/repos.d", "/etc/distro.repos.d"}
Therefore the move of repo files does not require any change in DNF. It should be just change in fedora-repos.
If anyone put his private repos to /etc/yum.repos.d then DNF will parse it too. From DNF point of view, the files can be
split randomly across all those directories.

Of course, that directory is mentioned everywhere in documentation and it will take ages to change it as it is written
everywhere. But the other option is to stuck with yum.repos.d forever.

Is there anything which can block this move?



Re: /etc/yum.repos.d -> /etc/distro.repos.d

By Peter Robinson at 03/15/2019 - 10:34

This has been discussed in the past and was overwhelming agreed to be
a bad idea and just change for changes sake. Please don't.

Re: /etc/yum.repos.d -> /etc/distro.repos.d

By Adam Williamson at 03/13/2019 - 16:36

On Wed, 2019-03-13 at 13:38 +0100, Miroslav Suchý wrote:
Well, any script which does anything to the Fedora repo config and
assumes it will be in /etc/yum.repos.d , for a start. (Our openQA tests
do this, for one thing.)

Re: /etc/yum.repos.d -> /etc/distro.repos.d

By =?iso-8859-1?q?... at 03/13/2019 - 13:07

Miroslav Suchý wrote:
Please, no. Sysadmins don't like having to change their habits, scripts
and documents for no benefit because somebody renamed something just for
the sake of renaming. Pointless changes cost time and money that could
have been spent doing useful work instead.

Björn Persson

Re: /etc/yum.repos.d -> /etc/distro.repos.d

By KH KH at 03/13/2019 - 10:52

Le mer. 13 mars 2019 à 13:39, Miroslav Suchý < ... at redhat dot com> a écrit :
I don't see the point to "change" this directory for "pleasure" if it
doesn't come with more features.
Right now yum.repos.d should be understood by "yum or compatible"
repository definitions.
I'm totally against using /etc/distro.repos.d as such.

Now if we can have a way to distribute default distro repos in
/usr/lib/distro.repos.d/fedora.repo and to be able to override some
options in /etc/distro.repos.d/fedora.repo such as (1).
Then it might be interresting behavior change.


Re: /etc/yum.repos.d -> /etc/distro.repos.d

By Kalev Lember at 03/13/2019 - 08:50

On 3/13/19 13:38, Miroslav Suchý wrote:
Please don't, it's just pointless renaming that invalidates all end user
documentation and makes it harder for other programs such as packagekit
and gnome-software that all need to adopt for the new paths.

Also, I've heard rumours that dnf might get renamed back to yum in the

Re: /etc/yum.repos.d -> /etc/distro.repos.d

By Orcan Ogetbil at 03/13/2019 - 16:13

On Wed, 13 Mar 2019 at 08:51, Kalev Lember wrote:
I just hope that dnf gets renamed to something easier. It doesn't
stick as good as yum, apt or pacman. Anything other than yum will be a
lot of work though.


Re: /etc/yum.repos.d -> /etc/distro.repos.d

By Michael Catanzaro at 03/13/2019 - 11:03

On Wed, Mar 13, 2019 at 7:50 AM, Kalev Lember < ... at gmail dot com>
Handling a rename is not exactly rocket science. Why would this be at
all problematic? The change is proposed for F31, not F30. That's plenty
of time. If this is the last remaining usage of "yum" in the distro
then let's get rid of it and move on. Since both locations should be
read, it should be fully backwards-compatible anyway.

Do the dnf developers know about this rumor...?


Re: /etc/yum.repos.d -> /etc/distro.repos.d

By =?iso-8859-1?q?... at 03/13/2019 - 13:10

<a href="mailto: ... at gnome dot org"> ... at gnome dot org</a> wrote:
In recent Fedora releases DNF has stopped complaining when it's invoked
as "yum". /usr/bin/yum is provided by the package dnf-yum, produced
from the source package dnf, so apparently at least the packagers of
DNF know about it.

It was discussed on this list last June. The renaming to DNF never
happened in RHEL/CentOS. It's Yum in RHEL 7 and (I hear) it will be Yum
in RHEL 8. Presumably the reason for this is that the sysadmins who
manage RHEL systems like continuity, dislike pointless renaming, and
really hate having to remember to type "dnf" on some servers and "yum"
on others for no good reason.

Björn Persson

Re: /etc/yum.repos.d -> /etc/distro.repos.d

By Roberto Ragusa at 03/14/2019 - 06:54

Renaming dnf to yum is IMHO the best option.
I constantly use the wrong tool when switching between Fedora and Centos,
and the painful "yum.repos.d" string issue (code + docs) would disappear.

Considering that yum has no future and that the options are sufficiently
similar, why not just consider dnf as a new and slightly incompatible yum
(remember egcs -> gcc many years ago)


Re: /etc/yum.repos.d -> /etc/distro.repos.d

By Michal Domonkos at 03/15/2019 - 05:34

On Thu, Mar 14, 2019 at 11:56 AM Roberto Ragusa < ... at robertoragusa dot it> wrote:
Actually, we're planning [1] to rename the "dnf-yum" subpackage to
"yum" in Fedora 31, to stay more consistent with the RHEL/CentOS
world. That way, once Fedora 31 is out, those who have the original
"yum" installed would just seamlessly upgrade to the new major version
4 (the former "dnf-yum"). That's about as close as we can get to
renaming dnf to yum in Fedora at this moment.

Note that the original yum config files would not be automatically
migrated or merged into their dnf counterparts (except for
/etc/yum.repos.d which is used by dnf already), but that's not the
goal here either, as it would be quite complex and error-prone (at a
minimum, we would have to incorporate a pretrans scriptlet using Lua
[2] to take care of some of the symlinks). Instead, we just want to
provide a smooth upgrade path for yum in Fedora for those who happen
to still be using it for one reason or another, however the actual
config migration (if needed) would have to be done manually by each

IOW, the plan is that the "yum" package will continue to live on both
distros, although the compatibility level of this package will differ
between the two; on Fedora, it will only ship the /usr/bin/yum symlink
and the yum(8) man page, just like the former "dnf-yum".

The whole situation may seem complicated right now, but using the same
package name for the yum compatibility layer on both Fedora and
RHEL/CentOS should simplify things a little bit.

[1] <a href="" title=""></a>
[2] <a href="" title=""></a>

Re: /etc/yum.repos.d -> /etc/distro.repos.d

By Theodore Papadopoulo at 03/13/2019 - 11:46

On 3/13/19 4:03 PM, <a href="mailto: ... at gnome dot org"> ... at gnome dot org</a> wrote:
It is reasonable to introduce a better name for the repo and
/etc/distro.repos.d seems to be a nice and clearer one. It furthermore
somewhat stresses that it is not related to a specific tool (yum) which
is indeed the case since packagekit and others also use it.

So creating the new directory (1) -- provided everyone agrees on the
name -- and putting the repo files in it is nice and not complicated or

A different question is migration of all tools/documentation to this new
directory. Fortubately, there is a simple solution. Make a symbolic link
from the old directory to the new. Adding this symbolic link (2) ensures
that everything works smoothly immediately (and conveys the message that
the "true" directory changed).

A third question (3) is when to suppress the symbolic link. Nothing
requires that this is immediate (except eventually some aesthetics). It
can last as long as needed to ensure that all tools are migrated and
that the name change is sufficiently documented (there will be always
old web ressources that will remain with the old name, but if the new
name appears often enough on web searches, that's OK).

I believe that (1) and (2) can be done immediately and could be consensual.

(3) can be dealt much later....


Re: /etc/yum.repos.d -> /etc/distro.repos.d

By John Harris at 03/13/2019 - 14:35

If anything of the like, /etc/dnf.repos.d makes more sense. These repos are not necessarily part of the distro.

On March 13, 2019 11:46:12 AM EDT, Theodore Papadopoulo <Theodore. ... at inria dot fr> wrote:

Re: /etc/yum.repos.d -> /etc/distro.repos.d

By =?utf-8?q?Samue... at 03/15/2019 - 06:31

Please don't tie the name with the particular software to avoid this issue in the future. If you must then I think rpm.repos.d is less likely to avoid this issue in the future.

Re: /etc/yum.repos.d -> /etc/distro.repos.d

By John Harris at 03/15/2019 - 10:38

`rpm` does not care what repositories your system has available, it doesn't work with them directly. That name would make no sense.

On March 15, 2019 6:31:40 AM EDT, "Samuel Rakitničan" < ... at fedoraproject dot org> wrote:

Re: /etc/yum.repos.d -> /etc/distro.repos.d

By Michal Domonkos at 03/15/2019 - 11:35

On Fri, Mar 15, 2019 at 3:39 PM John M. Harris, Jr.
< ... at splentity dot com> wrote:
I guess the rationale behind that was more of a "repositories of rpm
packages" than "repositories used by rpm(8)".

Re: /etc/yum.repos.d -> /etc/distro.repos.d

By Michal Domonkos at 03/15/2019 - 07:32

On Fri, Mar 15, 2019 at 11:32 AM Samuel Rakitničan
< ... at fedoraproject dot org> wrote:

Just like a few others have mentioned in this thread, I too consider
the choice of "dnf" for a package manager quite unfortunate. It does
not really stand for anything (except for the notorious Did Not

For the same reasons why "systemd" or any other basic system utilities
are not named after some random spur-of-the-moment sequence of
characters or words, *the* package manager on a UNIX-like system,
something that's really at the core of system administration, should
also prefer a sensible name such as "pkg" or similar.

In case of "dnf", I understand that one of the reasons was to make it
easy to touch-type, which it is (as opposed to "yum"), but that
quality is not in contradiction with the choice of a more descriptive
(yet short and simple) name. The name is fine for an experimental
project but those days are long gone and dnf is now the de-facto
successor of yum.

That said, if we should pick a different name today, "yum" seems like
the most sensible choice. While still far from ideal, it has
stickiness within the Fedora/RHEL community, and is a "trademark",

Re: /etc/yum.repos.d -> /etc/distro.repos.d

By Roberto Ragusa at 03/15/2019 - 10:13

Yesterday's Updater Modified

Re: /etc/yum.repos.d -> /etc/distro.repos.d

By =?ISO-8859-2?Q?... at 03/13/2019 - 10:36

Dne 13. 03. 19 v 13:50 Kalev Lember napsal(a):
Not exactly true.

When documentaion state: put this file in /etc/yum.repos.d/ ... then it will be still valid. DNF will read that file
without a problem.

We *may* start slowly change these documentation to "put this file in /etc/distro.repos.d".

Only invalid statement will be "fedora.repo is in /etc/yum.repos.d/"


Re: /etc/yum.repos.d -> /etc/distro.repos.d

By Ben Rosser at 03/13/2019 - 11:07

On Wed, Mar 13, 2019 at 10:37 AM Miroslav Suchý < ... at redhat dot com> wrote:
This isn't a great experience, though. It's kind of nice having all
the repository files in one place-- it means that if I want to find
out which repositories are enabled or installed without actually using
dnf, I can just look at the contents of a single directory.

Breaking that up into two+ directories will just make this slightly
more difficult and annoying. This might be okay if there was a strong
reason in favor of making the change, but it's not clear to me that
there is one beyond a desire to get away from using the name "yum".

Ben Rosser

Re: /etc/yum.repos.d -> /etc/distro.repos.d

By Richard Hughes at 03/13/2019 - 10:49

On Wed, 13 Mar 2019 at 14:37, Miroslav Suchý < ... at redhat dot com> wrote:
It's completely true, Kalev is spot on. GNOME Software reads files in
/etc/yum.repos.d to match up repo names to URLs. If there are two
directories, we'll need to modify both PackageKit and gnome-software.
It's completely pointless in my opinion.


Re: /etc/yum.repos.d -> /etc/distro.repos.d

By King InuYasha at 03/13/2019 - 08:41

On Wed, Mar 13, 2019 at 8:39 AM Miroslav Suchý < ... at redhat dot com> wrote:
Nothing except bikeshedding. :)

That said, I think if we want to move the repo files now, we should
also consider making so package installed repo and GPG files are in
/usr/share and that admin additions/overrides can be stored in /etc.
Same goes for vars and other such stuff.

That's more or less the mechanism we've adopted for tons of other
things, and it'd be nice to have it in DNF too...

Re: /etc/yum.repos.d -> /etc/distro.repos.d

By John Florian at 03/15/2019 - 15:41

On 3/13/19 8:41 AM, Neal Gompa wrote:

Yes!  This.

I would also suggest that the canonical location be defined in another
file whose name is as immutable as possible.  If there were a central
file that held such important locations and all tools consulted that
first, these kind of changes would be far less painful.  I'm thinking
along the lines of the blessed sanity that /etc/os-release brings. 
Obviously it'll take a long time for it to have the far reaching
benefits it could provide, but if we never start down that path...

Re: /etc/yum.repos.d -> /etc/distro.repos.d

By Dridi Boukelmoune at 03/13/2019 - 09:03

On Wed, Mar 13, 2019 at 1:42 PM Neal Gompa < ... at gmail dot com> wrote:
Why not /etc/dnf/repos.d and a symlink for /etc/yum.repos.d?

Agreed, but it would be nice to have tooling to list repos, see their
origin and whether or not they were overridden.

Wasn't systemd the catalyst for this?


Re: /etc/yum.repos.d -> /etc/distro.repos.d

By Rex Dieter at 03/13/2019 - 17:29

Please no, that will introduce it's own set of problems as well.

-- Rex

Re: /etc/yum.repos.d -> /etc/distro.repos.d

By =?ISO-8859-2?Q?... at 03/13/2019 - 09:07

Dne 13. 03. 19 v 14:03 Dridi Boukelmoune napsal(a):
Currently DNF reads both of them. So you will end with duplicate repositories, because DNF would see them twice.