On Mon, Dec 21, 2015 at 09:05:32AM -0500, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On 12/21/2015 05:36 AM, Jiri Eischmann wrote:
> Hi, due to previous efforts we have a pretty good appdata coverage
> of apps themselves, but add-ons (plugins, extensions,...) lag far
> behind. There are dozens of useful GUI app add-ons in Fedora
> repositories which don't have metadata files and are not exposed to
> users in GNOME Software. Let's focus on them.
> The goal of this iniciative is to have a metadata file for every
> useful add-on (for a GUI app) that is in Fedora repositories, so
> that those add-ons appear in app profiles in Software and are
> easily discoverable and installable for users.
> For more information visit
I'd love to see more people attempting this. I started on a few of
these a while ago, but got disheartened when I got responses like
when I provided
Richard, is there any way we can carry metadata like this outside of
the actual SRPM when maintainers are unwilling to accept the metadata
in their package?
I think that this is completely backwards. Either we, as the
distribution, decide that appstream is in, and pursue the
goal of implementing it, or we don't. We had a vote
], appstream metadata
was approved as "SHOULD". I get it that maintainers don't want
to create appstream metadata on their own, but if somebody did
the work, I don't see a good excuse to refuse to put the file
in rpm. You add the file, add the two commands to test and install
the file, and that's about it. Our ability to implement new
technologies which reqire distribution-wide changes hinges on the
maintainers following the guidelines and at least passively allowing
others to implement the changes.