Re: Adding metainfo.xml files to each pkg

[Carnë Draug]

On 18 January 2016 at 20:41, Colin Macdonald <address@hidden> wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
> I've started making GNU Octave and our pkgs appear in GUI package
> managers like Gnome Software (I think there is a KDE one too).  I attach
> some screenshots to show why we should do this... otherwise users may
> not find our software.
>
> Here is what I've done so far.
>
>  * GNU Octave itself is now fixed and appears again [1].
>
>  * a patch for Image [2], also attached for reference.
>
>  * I've done Symbolic and Doctest.
>
>  * If anyone wants to help, I'm tracking progress here [3].
>
>     - If you make a patch or update your package, please
>       update the "upstream" column or add a link.
>
>     - I did not include every pkg: quickly looked at
>       sourceforge, listed ones with high downloads.
>       But we should do most of them eventually.
>
>     - Probably we should emphasize pkgs which end users
>       would install.  I guess we can skip pkgs which are
>       usually dependencies (e.g., General---I assume).
>
>     - See here [4] for spec, in particular "<summmary/>
>       should be less than 101" characters.
>
>  * I'm focusing on Fedora b/c that is what I use, but its
>    not supposed to be distro-specific.
>
> [1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1293561
> [2] https://savannah.gnu.org/patch/index.php?8866
> [3] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Workstation/AddonAppdata#GNU_Octave
> [4]
> http://www.freedesktop.org/software/appstream/docs/sect-Quickstart-Addons.html
>

Those screenshoots look pretty good.  It is now also done for the image
and statistics package.

Like Oliver, I'm not very happy with the duplication of information but
I guess this stuff rarely changes.

Having it at the root of the package also itches me a bit.  Does anyone
have an opinion about it?  I guess this is the type of stuff where
downstream packagers are the best to answer.

Carnë