<div dir="ltr">Hi<br><div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 5:58 PM, Christian Schaller <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:cschalle@redhat.com" target="_blank">cschalle@redhat.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">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.<br>
</blockquote><div><br></div><div>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. <br>
<br></div><div>Rahul<br></div><div> </div></div></div></div></div>