Richard Hughes wrote:
Actually, I was going to propose doing gsettings set
org.gnome.software require-appdata true
That's at least the right place to enforce that policy.
I guess you'll have to apologise for that tirade, right?
So yes, sorry for assuming otherwise.
That still doesn't mean
On 9 November 2014 23:11, Kevin Kofler kevin.kof...@chello.at wrote:
I oppose this kind of censorship, especially because you are implementing it
at the point of AppStream data generation, and thus your arbitrary policy
decisions do not affect only the GNOME Software Center, but also any other
Richard Hughes wrote:
It will come as no surprise to many of you, but I'm going to propose
that we only show applications in the software center in F22 when they
have an AppData file. At the moment nearly 50% of applications in
Fedora 21 ship AppData files, and the ones left over are not
On 7 November 2014 02:15, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek zbys...@in.waw.pl wrote:
We would. My point is that we should we should make a list of
applications which are not allowed to fall by the wayside
I think that list would be very different for each person you ask; the
easiest thing to do is to
2014-11-06 12:03 GMT+02:00 Richard Hughes hughsi...@gmail.com:
I've attached a list of all the applications that would be affected by
this change. It's a long list, but a *lot* of the applications are
kinda dubious (lshw-gui anyone?).
I read your blog posts on AppStream/AppData and I found
On Thu, Nov 6, 2014 at 4:05 PM, Richard Hughes hughsi...@gmail.com wrote:
On 6 November 2014 14:49, Josh Boyer jwbo...@fedoraproject.org wrote:
Why wouldn't we (Fedora) add an AppData file to the package ourselves
for such exceptions?
We can, and should. I'd argue it's one of the most useful
- Original Message -
On Thu, Nov 6, 2014 at 4:05 PM, Richard Hughes hughsi...@gmail.com wrote:
On 6 November 2014 14:49, Josh Boyer jwbo...@fedoraproject.org wrote:
Why wouldn't we (Fedora) add an AppData file to the package ourselves
for such exceptions?
We can, and should. I'd
- Original Message -
Hi all,
It will come as no surprise to many of you, but I'm going to propose
that we only show applications in the software center in F22 when they
have an AppData file. At the moment nearly 50% of applications in
Fedora 21 ship AppData files, and the ones left
On 7 November 2014 11:04, Alexander Ploumistos
alex.ploumis...@gmail.com wrote:
I read your blog posts on AppStream/AppData and I found some
Workstation/AppDataImprovement pages on the wiki, but I could not find the
list you provided in your original message.
On 7 November 2014 11:24, Jaroslav Reznik jrez...@redhat.com wrote:
This is a very good idea, if we want to enforce it, packaging guidelines
are good place to start with for new applications.
Approved, but ignored: https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/414
Richard.
--
devel mailing list
- Original Message -
On 7 November 2014 11:24, Jaroslav Reznik jrez...@redhat.com wrote:
This is a very good idea, if we want to enforce it, packaging guidelines
are good place to start with for new applications.
Approved, but ignored: https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/414
Based
On 7 November 2014 15:01, Alexander Ploumistos
alex.ploumis...@gmail.com wrote:
You can scratch nut-monitor off, it already has appdata:
Is it in a tarball that's been built for F22? What some upstreams do
is commit the file upstream but either forget to dist the file in the
tarball, or forget
2014-11-07 17:28 GMT+02:00 Richard Hughes hughsi...@gmail.com:
Is it in a tarball that's been built for F22?
Version 2.7.2 was released in April and it doesn't have it, it's in their
development tree.
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
I will take care of the MATE packages and coordinate with upstream. I will
also deal with the following:
easystroke
qbittorrent
x11vnc
krename
avogadro
bkchem
chemtool
gausssum
IQmol
openbabel-gui
pybliographer
If someone has already contacted upstream or if you have created appdata
files
Hi all,
It will come as no surprise to many of you, but I'm going to propose
that we only show applications in the software center in F22 when they
have an AppData file. At the moment nearly 50% of applications in
Fedora 21 ship AppData files, and the ones left over are not exactly
the award
On Thu, Nov 06, 2014 at 10:03:08AM +, Richard Hughes wrote:
Hi all,
It will come as no surprise to many of you, but I'm going to propose
that we only show applications in the software center in F22 when they
have an AppData file. At the moment nearly 50% of applications in
Fedora 21
On Thu, Nov 6, 2014 at 9:41 AM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
zbys...@in.waw.pl wrote:
On Thu, Nov 06, 2014 at 10:03:08AM +, Richard Hughes wrote:
Hi all,
It will come as no surprise to many of you, but I'm going to propose
that we only show applications in the software center in F22 when
On 11/06/2014 11:03 AM, Richard Hughes wrote:
amarok
This is very good software, which should be there.
Quick google search shows this:
https://github.com/ximion/kde-appstream-metadata-templates/blob/master/apps/amarok.appdata.xml
datovka
This one is good as well. I just sent appdata file
On 6 November 2014 14:49, Josh Boyer jwbo...@fedoraproject.org wrote:
Why wouldn't we (Fedora) add an AppData file to the package ourselves
for such exceptions?
We can, and should. I'd argue it's one of the most useful thing a
Fedora packager can do:
* Spend the 5 minutes writing the AppData
On 6 November 2014 11:52, Miroslav Suchý msu...@redhat.com wrote:
This is very good software, which should be there.
Quick google search shows this:
https://github.com/ximion/kde-appstream-metadata-templates/blob/master/apps/amarok.appdata.xml
Yes, ximion has been slowly upstreaming those.
Hello,
first of all sorry if I missed this earlier, I can't hardly cope with all
mails received on devel. I tried to read them all when I can.
As the maintainer of these:
bacula-console-bat
bacula-traymonitor
I would suggest them to be removed from the software center, they are far
from being
So, should we contact upstream about the appdata file requirement and if
that doesn't work out make our own and send it to the package maintainer?
Where should the screenshots go?
I also agree with the proposal (even though this is the first time I read
about a software center), but your list
On 6 November 2014 19:25, Alexander Ploumistos
alex.ploumis...@gmail.com wrote:
So, should we contact upstream about the appdata file requirement and if
that doesn't work out make our own and send it to the package maintainer?
Where should the screenshots go?
You can either put them on your
On Thu, Nov 06, 2014 at 09:49:15AM -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
So, I think your proposal should be amended with the a list kept
somewhere on a wiki of applications which must get appdata, and treat
this list as blocking for this feature. This list would include
applications that are widely
24 matches
Mail list logo
