Re: AppStream file to store upstream metadata: registry and bibliography references
Hi Dylan,
On Sat, May 26, 2018 at 11:02:03AM +0200, Dylan Aïssi wrote:
> I started discussions with AppStream devs to add new tags in the AppStream
> file. This file contains upstream metadata and it is cross distro in
> contrary to our d/upstream/metadata.
>
> If you are using the d/u/metadata to store bibliography references or
> registry refences you can take part of discussions here [1-2].
>
> Currently, they agree to add registry references but still need to find the
> tag name. Concerning the bibliography references there is no consensus but
> I still think from a scientific point of view it could be useful to have a
> bibliography in this file and in the software center.
>
> The idea is to move some information (or all?) from
> debian/upstream/metadata to the AppStream which is cross distrib and
> ideally maintained by upstream. Ok we already have some troubles to get
> manpages from upstream so an AppStream file is a dream :-). But at least if
> upstream wants to provide metadata, there is a possibility with this file.
Thanks for this effort.
> So, if you are interested (or not :-), you can go there [1-2] to give your
> point of view.
I have no strong opinion about the registry discussion (#189). I can
cope with whatever outcome it has.
I have a strong opinion about the references discussion: I'm against a
reduced set of information and I'm even more against dumping it into
free text. If people think that's usueful in AppStream applications it
would be easy to export our data to this format. However, since we are
actually using every single field in our applications it would not help
to reduce this information and I would keep debian/upstream/metadata as
our primary source of information for references.
May be we collect more opinions here and write a summary about this to
#190.
Thanks again
Andreas.
> [1] https://github.com/ximion/appstream/issues/189
> [2] https://github.com/ximion/appstream/issues/190
--
http://fam-tille.de
Reply to: