Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 18

Thread: Fedora 22 To Push For Requiring Packages To Have AppData

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    15,655

    Default Fedora 22 To Push For Requiring Packages To Have AppData

    Phoronix: Fedora 22 To Push For Requiring Packages To Have AppData

    Fedora 22 will require applications that want to show up within the Linux distribution's software center to have an AppData file shipped by the program...

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=MTU4MDA

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    6

    Default Ubuntu Software Center

    Does Canonical use this data or do they maintain their own data for the Ubuntu Software Center?

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    46

    Default

    There're deprecated programs but thats not the best way to deal with them. Aren't you maintainers of those packages? Do it like Debian does. If there're no maintainer for the package - don't push it to repository. Maintainers are the ones who need to know whether package works or not.
    And ofcourse the second part is...if package is not popular that doesn't mean its not useful to some group of people. Do it like Ubuntu/Kubuntu does with their GUI market base your list off popularity index and if program has gui its showed by default while the ons that don't aren't visible until you click to make them visible too. That way you will have all packages available for GUI package manager and only show first the ones that are truly useful.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    709

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pizzapill View Post
    Does Canonical use this data or do they maintain their own data for the Ubuntu Software Center?
    Most of it can be pulled from the deb package. There is a debian server that holds screen shots of the different packages. They also have a solution for adding videos but i don't know how that is handled.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    241

    Default

    so this will replace packages? I don't get why there's need for this.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    709

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Thaodan View Post
    so this will replace packages? I don't get why there's need for this.
    It will improve their description

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    210

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Thaodan View Post
    so this will replace packages? I don't get why there's need for this.
    No. This just makes it easier to find a good application, as opposed to having to muck about with packages. You don't want your "software center" to contain all packages, since most of them are not a (desktop) application.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    241

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kigurai View Post
    No. This just makes it easier to find a good application, as opposed to having to muck about with packages. You don't want your "software center" to contain all packages, since most of them are not a (desktop) application.
    but why don't add it to the pkgmeta data?
    Additionally I don't like that the spec is from GNOME

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Vilnius, Lithuania
    Posts
    2,668

    Default

    I'm also not sure why they don't use RPM fields for that, but I guess that it's faster when the file is outside the package, or something? And I can also understand GNOME, given that they wanted a cross-package spec as opposed to one bound to either RPM or DEB.

  10. #10

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Thaodan View Post
    but why don't add it to the pkgmeta data?
    Additionally I don't like that the spec is from GNOME
    It is part of the package metadata in Appdata form. It is a distribution neutral, desktop environment neutral specification at

    http://people.freedesktop.org/~hughsient/appdata/

    The reason not to add it to RPM or whatever is to enable other distributions to use it easily. Knee jerk reactions just because it came from one desktop environment developers aren't useful. Focus on the spec itself and what it provides to end users.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •