Removal of meta-packages

Thoughts & Feedback
#1

Or, how about this; Wimpy stops making non-system programs part of the meta packages?

Sorry to come off a bit cross, but some meta package dependencies make absolutely no sense. Further, the removal of such package should invoke the reinstall of all dependent software so that the meta package would no longer be required and the user is allowed to do what they may with their system.

I’m sort of getting like, super-tired of having two of everything on my PC just because I prefer to use different software.

Why you should be aware of the consequences of deleting a meta-package and how to hide menu items as an alternative strategy
Why you should be aware of the consequences of deleting a meta-package and how to hide menu items as an alternative strategy
#2

Martin has recently indicated elsewhere that he is working on precisely the thing you have asked for. However, I am guessing that the reason it has been set up as a meta package, up to this point, will be to do with time and resource constraints. Which, if so, would be quite understandable, in my view.

#3

I am not saying that meta packages suck. They are cool for what they are; one-shot solutions for users to install just in case they happened to cock up their install and needed a Fix it right now type solution when they don’t know what they’re doing.

So in hindsight, instead of removing software from those metapackages, I guess what I really want is a bare-bones MATE metapackage that gives me the bare essentials, leaving stuff like the FM, AM and WM entirely up to me. moved to suggests or recommends, of course, but not strictly including things that can be replaced rather easily.

#4

That would be nice yes. I would probably use it myself.

#5

See this post for some of the points you’ve both raised in this other topic:

#6

Read this:

#7

More so, if the packages are so important as the original post mandates, then it would be against any common sense to include in them software that is obviously optional.

What do I mean?

For example, shotwell and hexchat both belong to the ubuntu-make-desktop metapackage. I uninstalled both, but for argument sake let us assume I want to keep hexchat but remove shotwell. According to the original poster that is a bad idea because I will compromise future automatic upgrades.

So, what is wrong with this picture?

Well, why are shotwell and hexchat in the same meta package then? Seems like an arbitrary decision of the distro makers that compromise my ability to take control of my system. If shotwell and hexchat are to be made default applications (and that is just fine. I have nothing against the idea of pre-installed applications), don’t install them together, as part of a metapackage. In fact, don’t use a metapackage at all. Just pre-install them individually. Give me control to decide what to remove and what to keep on an individual basis, without compromising my system.

Meta pacakges like ubuntu-mate-desktop and ubuntu-mate-core are really just a convenience to a tiny portion of the user base. I have not know anyone (not a single person) for whom arbitrary collections of software as metapackages have been beneficial, on any distro. Not one. Metapackages are great for other things, like keeping track of the latest version of a multipackage installation (think the postgres metapackage for example). But as a tool to force me into an application garden in my computer that is decided by the distro maintainers… no, please!

#8

wimpy’s suppose to had fixed that for 16.10, though if you want to stick to LTS, maybe you can suggest to @wimpy (after he does everything else in his very. very busy life) that he rebuilds the 16.04 packages to be like 16.10.

#9

I get the point people are making, however, in practice I have never found this to be an issue. I have removed some bundled applications together with the meta-packages ubuntu-mate-desktop and ubuntu-mate-core without any adverse effects on the upgrading of other applications in the meta-packages. For, example, I get regular updates of Firefox and the latter is included in the Ubuntu-mate-desktop meta-package.

I would recommend people to uninstall applications they never use rather than hide them in the Main Menu, especially if there are a lot of them. These unused applications are bloatware and bloatware must have some impact on computer performance.

The process of removing applications is easily reversible and therefore not worrisome at all. All you have to do is re-install the meta-packages.

#10

It’s only bloat for your filesystem; You seem to think there’s a bunch of background bullocks that’s running, even though the only issue this “bloatware” posits is occupancy on disk.

The reason why removal of metapackages is a big concern is because without the metapackage being updated, some underlying software and libraries may also not become updated, even with a system upgrade.

It’s not right by any means; Users should be able to have the apps they want, remove those they do not want and not ever have to worry if a metapackage is going to break anything, but it’s what’s users have to deal with now and I hope by 16.10 this will no longer be a concern and we can all move on with configuring the system’s extra software as we wish, sans the metapackage issue.

#11

The packaging changes can’t be back ported to 16.04, it is too invasive. About 20 none MATE packages need patching, including Ubiquity, and the Ubuntu build system that creates the iso images required modification.

The prospect of SRU’ing all that to 16.04 is out of the question.