Re: Applications with AppData and not visible in the software center

[Ville Skyttä]

On Thu, Jan 5, 2017 at 4:50 PM, Matthew Miller  wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 05, 2017 at 03:41:56PM +0200, Ville Skyttä wrote:
>> This one has the too small icon "problem". It only has a 32x32 one,
>> and with my (also wearing the Portecle upstream hat) graphical skills
>> a new, better one simply will not appear, and simply resizing/scaling
>> the current one is not IMO an option. Icon contributions are welcome.
>
> As a quick fix, I ran the existing icon through Inkscape's "Trace Pixel
> Art" feature. That gives
> https://mattdm.fedorapeople.org/misc/portecle.svg, which is not the
> *worst* thing ever and might serve as a temporary workaround.

Thanks, I'll look into this.
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Applications with AppData and not visible in the software center

[Ville Skyttä]

On Fri, Jan 6, 2017 at 3:50 AM, Luya Tshimbalanga
 wrote:
> Wearing designer hat, I will take a look at making a set of icons for
> PorteClé (keychain in english).
> Could you submit a request on Fedora Design team page and assign it to
> my email?

Thanks! Issue filed, but I cannot seem to find a way to assign it to
you: https://pagure.io/design/issue/497
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Applications with AppData and not visible in the software center

[Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek]

On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 04:03:36PM +, Richard Hughes wrote:
> On 11 January 2017 at 15:52, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
>  wrote:
> > This amount of breakage (65 packages, *despite* validation)
> 
> Most of those packages don't validate the AppData file...
> 
> > and no filtering should be done during display.
> 
> It isn't -- that status page is for apps that don't even get into the 
> metadata.
> 
> > If there are some issues with an appdata entry, both users and the
> > package maintainers would be much better served if it is displayed,
> > even imperfect and ugly, than not at all.
> 
> You mean just display a stock broken image for the application icon?
> No description for markup problems?

Yeah, I do think that this would be better.

> > It would be much easier to
> > diagnose things, and would probably encourage more people to fix those
> > visual issues. Currently it's just too easy to never see the problem.
> > Filtering in this final "user" stage just seems to be in the wrong
> > place, and goes against the principle of gentle degradation.
> 
> I think the opposite might be the solution; fail the rpmbuild if the
> appdata is invalid. Then the packager knows at build time rather than
> having to check some random status page.

Exactly. Make this check the most stringent, to catch the errors in a
verbose way. But if it passes, even with warnings, don't filter the
application out in later steps.

Zbyszek
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Applications with AppData and not visible in the software center

[Richard Hughes]

On 11 January 2017 at 15:52, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
 wrote:
> This amount of breakage (65 packages, *despite* validation)

Most of those packages don't validate the AppData file...

> and no filtering should be done during display.

It isn't -- that status page is for apps that don't even get into the metadata.

> If there are some issues with an appdata entry, both users and the
> package maintainers would be much better served if it is displayed,
> even imperfect and ugly, than not at all.

You mean just display a stock broken image for the application icon?
No description for markup problems?

> It would be much easier to
> diagnose things, and would probably encourage more people to fix those
> visual issues. Currently it's just too easy to never see the problem.
> Filtering in this final "user" stage just seems to be in the wrong
> place, and goes against the principle of gentle degradation.

I think the opposite might be the solution; fail the rpmbuild if the
appdata is invalid. Then the packager knows at build time rather than
having to check some random status page.

Richard
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Applications with AppData and not visible in the software center

[Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek]

This amount of breakage (65 packages, *despite* validation), is a sign
of a bigger problem. The "validation" is weak, and the filtering
applied in gnome-software, i.e. the user interface, is strong and
unexpected and silent. IMHO things should be reversed: validation
should be proactive and warn about things which are wrong now or will
be considered wrong in the future, and no filtering should be done
during display.

If there are some issues with an appdata entry, both users and the
package maintainers would be much better served if it is displayed,
even imperfect and ugly, than not at all. It would be much easier to
diagnose things, and would probably encourage more people to fix those
visual issues. Currently it's just too easy to never see the problem.
Filtering in this final "user" stage just seems to be in the wrong
place, and goes against the principle of gentle degradation.

Zbyszek

On Fri, Jan 06, 2017 at 07:26:52PM +, Richard Hughes wrote:
> On 6 January 2017 at 02:16, Ben Rosser  wrote:
> > It turns out that I am very silly, and, when writing the appstream
> > file for tilp2, never changed "comical.desktop" in the template here
> > [1] to "tilp.desktop".
> > ...whoops! I can, uh, fix that.
> 
> :)
> 
> > However, interestingly, it seems that "appstream-util validate-relax
> > --nonet" doesn't seem to care. It happily validates tilp2's appstream
> > information [2], which is why I never noticed this at the time. I
> > would think that "referenced desktop file doesn't exist on system"
> > should at least be a warning or something when validating?
> 
> Well, to do a full validation we need to search for the icon, look for
> the desktop file and validate the appdata file. This is what you can
> do with:
> 
> $ appstream-util check-root
> 
> Although it's best used in the package build system, e.g. for RPM you can do:
> 
> DESTDIR=%{buildroot} appstream-util check-root
> 
> It's lightly tested, so it if works or breaks please let me know.
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Applications with AppData and not visible in the software center

[Kalev Lember]

On 01/05/2017 12:56 PM, Richard Hughes wrote:
>  * nextcloud-client (maybe fixed in distgit)
>  * owncloud-client

I just pushed fixes for nextcloud-client and owncloud-client. They had
the same issue where the desktop file and appdata file names didn't
match up.

-- 
Kalev
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Applications with AppData and not visible in the software center

[Richard Hughes]

On 6 January 2017 at 02:16, Ben Rosser  wrote:
> It turns out that I am very silly, and, when writing the appstream
> file for tilp2, never changed "comical.desktop" in the template here
> [1] to "tilp.desktop".
> ...whoops! I can, uh, fix that.

:)

> However, interestingly, it seems that "appstream-util validate-relax
> --nonet" doesn't seem to care. It happily validates tilp2's appstream
> information [2], which is why I never noticed this at the time. I
> would think that "referenced desktop file doesn't exist on system"
> should at least be a warning or something when validating?

Well, to do a full validation we need to search for the icon, look for
the desktop file and validate the appdata file. This is what you can
do with:

$ appstream-util check-root

Although it's best used in the package build system, e.g. for RPM you can do:

DESTDIR=%{buildroot} appstream-util check-root

It's lightly tested, so it if works or breaks please let me know.

Richard.
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Applications with AppData and not visible in the software center

[Ben Rosser]

On Thu, Jan 5, 2017 at 6:56 AM, Richard Hughes  wrote:
>  * tilp2

It turns out that I am very silly, and, when writing the appstream
file for tilp2, never changed "comical.desktop" in the template here
[1] to "tilp.desktop".

...whoops! I can, uh, fix that.

However, interestingly, it seems that "appstream-util validate-relax
--nonet" doesn't seem to care. It happily validates tilp2's appstream
information [2], which is why I never noticed this at the time. I
would think that "referenced desktop file doesn't exist on system"
should at least be a warning or something when validating?

Ben Rosser

[1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:AppData#.appdata.xml_file_creation

[2] As evidenced by this scratch-build build I just ran
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=17172267
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Applications with AppData and not visible in the software center

[Luya Tshimbalanga]

On 05/01/17 05:52 AM, Richard Hughes wrote:
> On 5 January 2017 at 13:41, Ville Skyttä  wrote:
>> This one has the too small icon "problem". It only has a 32x32 one,
>> and with my (also wearing the Portecle upstream hat) graphical skills
>> a new, better one simply will not appear, and simply resizing/scaling
>> the current one is not IMO an option. Icon contributions are welcome.
> The problem is really with modern HiDPI screens. A 32x32 icon scaled
> up to 64x64 and then again to 128x128 just looks really bad, and the
> software center designers really don't want apps that just make
> everything else look ugly.
>
> I don't normally suggest this, but could you take an existing stock
> icon perhaps from the GNOME icon theme and modify it for your needs?
> The Portecle icon doesn't look particularly "branded" and it would be
> pretty easy for someone with inkscape skillz to make distinctive. I'm
> pretty sure there's a fedora design mailing list too, and that's full
> of helpful suitably qualified people :)
>
> Richard.
> ___
> devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Wearing designer hat, I will take a look at making a set of icons for
PorteClé (keychain in english).
Could you submit a request on Fedora Design team page and assign it to
my email?

Thanks

-- 
Luya Tshimbalanga
Graphic & Web Designer
E: l...@fedoraproject.org
W: http://www.coolest-storm.net




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Applications with AppData and not visible in the software center

[Matthew Miller]

On Thu, Jan 05, 2017 at 03:41:56PM +0200, Ville Skyttä wrote:
> This one has the too small icon "problem". It only has a 32x32 one,
> and with my (also wearing the Portecle upstream hat) graphical skills
> a new, better one simply will not appear, and simply resizing/scaling
> the current one is not IMO an option. Icon contributions are welcome.

As a quick fix, I ran the existing icon through Inkscape's "Trace Pixel
Art" feature. That gives
https://mattdm.fedorapeople.org/misc/portecle.svg, which is not the
*worst* thing ever and might serve as a temporary workaround.

For better, you could try
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Design#Request_Design_Help

-- 
Matthew Miller

Fedora Project Leader
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Applications with AppData and not visible in the software center

[Richard Hughes]

On 5 January 2017 at 13:41, Ville Skyttä  wrote:
> This one has the too small icon "problem". It only has a 32x32 one,
> and with my (also wearing the Portecle upstream hat) graphical skills
> a new, better one simply will not appear, and simply resizing/scaling
> the current one is not IMO an option. Icon contributions are welcome.

The problem is really with modern HiDPI screens. A 32x32 icon scaled
up to 64x64 and then again to 128x128 just looks really bad, and the
software center designers really don't want apps that just make
everything else look ugly.

I don't normally suggest this, but could you take an existing stock
icon perhaps from the GNOME icon theme and modify it for your needs?
The Portecle icon doesn't look particularly "branded" and it would be
pretty easy for someone with inkscape skillz to make distinctive. I'm
pretty sure there's a fedora design mailing list too, and that's full
of helpful suitably qualified people :)

Richard.
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Applications with AppData and not visible in the software center

[Ville Skyttä]

On Thu, Jan 5, 2017 at 1:56 PM, Richard Hughes  wrote:
[...]
>  * portecle
[...]
> If you want any suggestions or advice, I'm happy to help.

This one has the too small icon "problem". It only has a 32x32 one,
and with my (also wearing the Portecle upstream hat) graphical skills
a new, better one simply will not appear, and simply resizing/scaling
the current one is not IMO an option. Icon contributions are welcome.
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Applications with AppData and not visible in the software center

[Vít Ondruch]

Dne 5.1.2017 v 12:56 Richard Hughes napsal(a):
> As a reminder, you can validate AppData files using: appstream-util
> validate-relax file.appdata.xml

Just to clarify, according to the guidelines, the validation is a *MUST*:

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:AppData#app-data-validate_usage


Vít

___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Applications with AppData and not visible in the software center

[Richard Hughes]

We've been looking at the AppStream extractor issues in Fedora, and
we've come across a few broken applications. Broken apps are not
visible in the application installer. The apps include:

 * albumart
 * apitrace-gui
 * appstream
 * asylum
 * audience
 * bomber
 * bovo
 * calligra-braindump
 * cervisia
 * choqok
 * classified-ads
 * crrcsim
 * cube
 * curblaster
 * dsi
 * escape
 * ettercap
 * font-manager
 * freedink-engine
 * gap-core
 * gnofract4d
 * gvrng
 * hgview
 * hyperrogue
 * kaddressbook
 * key-mon
 * kgraphviewer
 * knotes
 * konqueror
 * LabPlot
 * nextcloud-client (maybe fixed in distgit)
 * openms
 * openvibe
 * owncloud-client
 * pingus
 * pioneer
 * portecle
 * qdigidoc
 * qjackctl
 * qsynth
 * qtikz
 * recoll
 * renku
 * rodent
 * screengrab
 * screenruler
 * simple-ccsm
 * slashem
 * spectacle
 * speed-dreams
 * tennix
 * tilp2
 * tortoisehg
 * trophy
 * tzclock
 * uzbl-defaults
 * vdrift
 * vegastrike
 * wireshark-gtk
 * xfce4-power-manager
 * xfpanel-switch
 * xskat
 * yakuake
 * zanshin
 * zathura

The full list, along with what failed is available here:
https://dl.fedoraproject.org/pub/alt/screenshots/f26/failed.html

If you want any suggestions or advice, I'm happy to help. Most of the
failures are pretty self explanatory, e.g. "No  in AppData"
or "icon was too small 24x24" -- our guidelines are here:
https://github.com/hughsie/appstream-glib/blob/master/README.md#guidelines-for-applications

As a reminder, you can validate AppData files using: appstream-util
validate-relax file.appdata.xml

Thanks, and comments welcome. I can set up a script that sends email
to the package maintainer if this would be helpful, but I thought we
might be able to get the majority of these sorted with this email.

Richard.
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org