Re: Adding metainfo.xml files to each pkg

[Colin Macdonald]

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