Hi list,
just a heads up: because we're talking about how to validate appstream metadata: When
validating metadata, one of the "default" warnings you get is:
> In the past, mailto: URL schemas to link to email addresses were also supported for
this URL type. It is recommended to not use them in new metadata, as they provide poor
usability on most systems when users click on such a link and no local email client is
configured.
I just got word from upstream that the official standing is that a point of contact for a
software package can not validly be an email address:
https://github.com/ximion/appstream/issues/331
I believe they do that in good faith ("most probably don't even have an email client set
up"), but this basically means I can not write *correct* and *valid* metadata at the same
time:
Our whole social maintenance infrastructure (and, debian all the same) is built on the
fact that packagers have email addresses. It's the *one* common medium.
I've hence asked whether that ruling could be softened; after all, a user interface
problem ("can't open mail client upon a click") is not the same as a metadata issue.
Sadly, appstream maintenance and I seem to disagree here.
Either way, as far as I understand we aim for zero-warning, yet correct metadata. I'm
involved in upstream packaging of software myself, so I wonder how I can make my upstream
metainfo ideally 100% applicable for fedora, yet correct. Email *is* the way to reach the
software maintainers.
Best,
Marcus
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it:
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
