"install everything" and @everything dumped

[Jim Cornette]

Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> Hi
> 
>>
>> - Not having a desktop where customization and completely stupid 
>> ideas. (gss and nautilus browsing behavior) are pushed into the 
>> desktop to spite user feedback to the contrary. (GNOME)
> 
> What does this have to do with a everything installation?. If you have 
> request for enhancements to gss and nautilus browsing behavior, file them

Nothing  directly, I believe the fact that the removing the ability for 
someone to have a choice to install everything if they desired to is the 
connection to gss and nautilus. The connection is why are we making 
software? Is it for the developers or for the users? Is there any way to 
come to a middle ground where both perspectives merge?
Some of the latest changes comparatively resemble going into someone's 
house and they have music that you dislike. you might ask them if they 
could change the selection. They respond back with it is my house, radio 
or a similar comparison. Of course one either departs or argues a bit more.
Basically, a compromise should make and questions should be proposed as 
to how a common resolution can be met middle ground.
Sorry, my thought process for grouping concepts.

> 
>> Metacity even cut out the windows managing feature. This is base for 
>> what the program is supposed to accomplish in the first place. 
>> Simplicity is not the answer.
> 
> Not sure what you refer to as the windows managing feature. Last time I 
> checked they were moving towards the direction of adding more window 
> management option with features like edge resistance. Again unsure how 
> this relates to everything installation.

I believe the fact that metacity does not currently work and did work 
slightly before an upgrade with test 3 and its "stabilization" phase 
brought out issues with metacity comparative to previous desktop 
managers like enlightenment and other capable managers used throughout 
at least RHL 5.2 history.
> 
>> Upstream co-operation with project goals and usability and 
>> customizability are better served with divergence from upstream.
> 
> Diverging from upstream solution is a long term maintenance issue. We 
> need to be careful about that.

It is becoming obvious that making a system which is limited in 
functionality or reduced user configurability is not possible with 
upstream adherence and reduced patches. Programs cannot solely rely on 
the fact that the upstream developer does not want to add capabilities 
for a program to be able to cope with performing an install everything 
selection or for a program to install whatever it can resolve program 
requirements with and report on what programs were not unpalatable 
because of dep issues. Yum is the Fedora installers  main resolution 
device and it should be patched regardless of upstream arguments. If the 
end user is limited from functionality, departure from upstream and 
customization of a program should be applied. If maintenance becomes an 
issue and divergence is too great, it is now another program with more 
desired features.

If yum is holding back the possibility to do an everything install, fix 
it. If GNOME is getting a lot of people upset with tactics and deletion 
of features without regard for user concerns, diverge, patch, eliminate 
crappy integrated programs, add missing capabilities to the programs/suites.

Jim