On Thursday, December 20, 2018 01:08:54 PM Petter Reinholdtsen wrote: > [Paul Wise] > > > I don't think I have the requisite time and understanding to do this, > > hopefully Petter will be interested to work on this but in general I > > think it will be best for individual upstreams to work on this since > > they know their software best and how to best expose which info. > > I registered a bts report against nitrokey-app with a proposed patch to > announce hardware support using appstream. See > <URL: https://bugs.debian.org/916911 >. > > I guess the documentation should be updated to make it more clear how to > do it, but I am a bit blind to exactly what is hard to comprehend about > the task, so I will need help with that. > > I do not have much spare time either, but did file quite a few bug > reports with patches for providing metadata on supported hardware to > several packages. Unfortunately most of these patches are just > lingering in BTS, so I ran out of steem and motivation for that > approach. Perhaps adding appstream information into policy is a better > approach. I kind of doubt it, as policy should should not be a stick to > force people to do work they do not want to do. How can me make people > want to provide hardware metadata for their packages? A lintian warning > help a bit, but it obviously not convincing the remaining package > maintainers.
I appreciate you filing the bug. One more example of how I think the priority for this is wrong. Currently lintian claims this issue (W) is more important than missing hardening flags (I). I don't think that's right. I'll lay off this bug now as I think I've expressed myself fully and it's really up to the lintian maintainers to decided. Scott K