Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Fedora 22 To Push For Requiring Packages To Have AppData

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • 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
    Ubuntu Software Center

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

    Comment


    • #3
      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.

      Comment


      • #4
        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.

        Comment


        • #5
          so this will replace packages? I don't get why there's need for this.

          Comment


          • #6
            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

            Comment


            • #7
              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.

              Comment


              • #8
                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

                Comment


                • #9
                  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.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    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.

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X