>To be clear my beef is with the whole appstream premise. It is based on a 
>commercial upstream model (not surprising really since the promoters seem to 
>be Red Hat, Ubuntu and Suse) where upstream has a need to "advertise" and the 
>resources to do so. No problem with the commercial guys advertising 
>themselves, its their job, but Geany does not follow that model, and we don't 
>seem to have any advertising/marketing gurus willing to contribute.

The only subject of discussion is whether including the appstream file (most of 
which is prepared already) in your releases hurts anyone or benefits anyone. I 
haven't seen one argument from you as to why it would displease anyone and I 
have already provided examples of how it can help some users -- indeed one more 
follows (toward the end of comment).

If you have philosophical issues with appstream, that is "beyond the scope of 
this pull request". I won't try to convince you otherwise. As stated earlier, 
my intent was limited to helping out **specifically in geany's case** to make 
it more discoverable on distros that have already adopted this feature. But of 
course, if as upstream you think it will be too much work to maintain the file, 
that is a ground for rejection of this PR indeed. It might be a bit concerning 
then that downstream packagers would likely be shipping their own versions of 
"unblessed" appstream files for geany (like Fedora does, openSUSE might follow 
suit) which may carry out-of-date or plain wrong info in some cases.

>As I said in a previous post, its ok to provide a set of default xml tags for 
>distros to use, but without the distro specific parts we shouldn't install it 
>when Geany is built and installed from tarball or git. After all a user who 
>has just done that, isn't going to need the application description.

She could still use e.g. gnome-software to write a review, etc.

---
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/geany/geany/pull/1142#issuecomment-233931303

Reply via email to