[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Adding metainfo.xml files to each pkg
From: |
Colin Macdonald |
Subject: |
Re: Adding metainfo.xml files to each pkg |
Date: |
Tue, 19 Jan 2016 17:19:04 -0800 |
User-agent: |
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.4.0 |
On 19/01/16 15:25, Oliver Heimlich wrote:
> To some extend the files overlap with our current DESCRIPTION and NEWS
> files for packages. There is not trivial way to avoid redundancy, isn't
> it?
Not that I see. Even the short license tag is in different formats :(
(I guess pkgs could use spdx.org license tags in DESCRIPTION if they want.)
> For example, should we put a description into the appdata files? Or
> should we limit ourselves to what you prepared for octave-image: package
> name, a summary line, license and contact information?
I just put what fields were recommended by the reference I gave: I guess
its probably ok to have others from the larger appdata spec.
In fact I asked about <keywords> and @hughsie said:
>> You certainly can do; any keywords added to the metainfo
>> get promoted to the “parent” application for the search.
[https://blogs.gnome.org/hughsie/2016/01/07/the-importance-of-keywords-for-the-software-center/]
So I think we *should* add keywords to the metainfo.xml for each
package: that way, when someone searches for "image processing" or
"interval arithmetic" they find GNU Octave.
> It is an interesting feature to localize the content in appdata files.
> Should we bother with this, given that Octave packages typically have no
> i18n?
Indeed that can be done. I also have not yet encountered a pkg that has
i18n: I guess when someone starts doing that, we can update the
metainfo.xml as well.
best,
Colin