ngraham added a comment.
In D12498#278282 <https://phabricator.kde.org/D12498#278282>, @bruns wrote: > In D12498#272379 <https://phabricator.kde.org/D12498#272379>, @ngraham wrote: > > > I feel like if we go with "missing", users will blame us and we'll get bug reports ("If it's missing, why can't you provide it? Duh!"). > > > Its simple "We can not provide it because upstream was to lazy to read and follow the spec. Please raise a upstream bug report". If we just omit it, we encourage upstream to keep shipping faulty polkit action files. This concept (and the proposed label) is suitable for a developer audience, not a regular user audience. We have the same issue in Discover when upstreams don't ship enough ApStream metadata. We omit anything that's missing instead of labeling the missing sections with some kind of admonishment to the upstreams. Developers like us should take care of browbeating non-compliant upstream software vendors; we shouldn't push that work onto users. REPOSITORY R121 Policykit (Polkit) KDE Agent REVISION DETAIL https://phabricator.kde.org/D12498 To: sharvey, bruns, ngraham, davidedmundson Cc: davidedmundson, bruns, ngraham, plasma-devel, ragreen, Pitel, ZrenBot, lesliezhai, ali-mohamed, jensreuterberg, abetts, sebas, apol, mart
