Deep breath time. Since everything on the internet now lasts approximately forever, it's important to consider how all of this looks to everyone coming into it. An appearance of cooperation and a tone of collaboration are the most helpful even if you feel like wringing necks, just as in a workplace conference room.
I can certainly understand frustration at your inability here to guarantee a certain level of user experience, which is important. Your user is your top priority, that's all good. As a homebrew consumer, I'd like your outcome myself. Your community is also a participant, and they're unavoidable. Some sort of accommodation in the flow (README, first-run message etc.) would mitigate.
A colleague and friend always advised "take the high road" and it's painful in the short term, always the better option in the long term.
Package managers should agree to remove software from a platform if the developer thinks it's not fruitful for them to keep publishing there, or it's detrimental to the user's experience.
So! I developed and published a software https://github.com/poetaman/arttime. Thinking it would be beneficial for users to be able to install it from homebrew, I published a package on that platform. Recently, I realized that there is problem. Unlike when a user runs install.sh from arttime's cloned GitHub repository, a user installing from homebrew doesn't get a crucial installation note. The note asks users to take a few steps before using the software, so it runs correctly at their end. The only installation message homebrew's installer print from developer is called "caveats". But they won't let me add a note for new users to take a crucial step before trying to run arttime, because of a legalism of what "caveats" stand for in homebrew's lingo. They are not open to other kinds of installation notes either. The lead of Homebrew stepped in and steered the conversation to irrationality. Talking of his 15 years of experience and what not instead of seeing it from users and developer experience perspective. I requested them to remove my software till a satisfying solution is found. Then they started using the word "law", and because it is not written in law, they won't remove my software. And I have been told to add some bloat code in my application to notify the users at run time to update their computer settings. This is definitely one instance where open source software publishing platforms have failed us. An open source developer should have freedom to stop publishing a software from a platform that is forcing them to add bloat code.
Be more useful than just saying you agree or disagree with them. What is it that makes you agree with their behavior to not remove a problematic install experience? They are forcing me to modify my software and publish a release so users will get a notification at runtime. That't not what I want my software's users to experience. Given they don't allow printing an installation note, it's fair to ask them to remove the software from their platform, as I don't see it fruitful to add a bloat code to my software just so users get notifications at run time for what really are installation notes.
I can certainly understand frustration at your inability here to guarantee a certain level of user experience, which is important. Your user is your top priority, that's all good. As a homebrew consumer, I'd like your outcome myself. Your community is also a participant, and they're unavoidable. Some sort of accommodation in the flow (README, first-run message etc.) would mitigate.
A colleague and friend always advised "take the high road" and it's painful in the short term, always the better option in the long term.