On Wed, 2013-10-02 at 18:41 -0400, Rahul Sundaram wrote: > Hi > > > On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 5:58 PM, Christian Schaller > <cschalle@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Yes agreed, I mean if you are proficient enough to want to > micromanage what software is installed with your desktop then > I am sure removing the metapackage is within your skillset > too. Of course the metapackage needs to stay somewhat trim > here, but that is fine too as I think the new Software > installer will reduce the need for stuff to be pre-installed > as we can give new applications visibility in the installer as > opposed to having to default install them for visibility. > > > Well, if fedup used yum instead of rpm directly, we wouldn't have this > problem in the first place but another related problem is that end > users don't usually understand meta packages. If I remove an > application and it shows say fedora-desktop (just a example meta > package name) as a dependency to be removed, I have no idea what that > really means. Well we are trying to move away from Yum and move over to hawkeye as quickly as possible, but that is another discussion :) Anyway, aren't we concerned about a very small demographic here, the demographic consisting of people who understand what the hell all these other package names we have mean, yet find the concept of a meta package confusing? Also exposing users to the individual package names is what we want to get away from with the new Software installer. Instead we want to expose them to an application name and description as that is a lot more sensible to most people, as opposed to questions about if they are fine with 'informative' names such as libpst or libytnef being installed dependencies. Christian -- desktop mailing list desktop@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop
