Re: Help required for the application installer
Le Ven 25 octobre 2013 12:52, Akira TAGOH a écrit :
----- Original Message -----
| * The ID is what gnome-software uses internally, don't read too much
| into the format.
|
| * The "Parent" is supposed to be the parent font name, so for
| instance, "Lato Thin" and "Lato Black" would both have the parent
of
| "Lato"
That is in fact a long standing issue or a long-term RFE in fontconfig.
I'd manage to fix/improve it though.
Also we already hide stuff like Droid fallback in fontconfig rules, it's a
pity it's not been completely plumbed into rpm. Right now the fontconfig
to rpm metadata exports only low-level font names not the preferred human
name.
And, unfortunately (++) not all font packages make the effort to unify
family names like Droid does, I've noticed a resurgence of per-script font
packages lately (will have to look at it more whenever personal life gaves
me the possibility)
| * The "Name" is currently set at what the font provides
us with, and
| we can tweak this if requires, for instance "roadstencil" can become
| "Road Stencil"
I'm not sure tweaking is a good idea here.
| * The "Summary" is a one line description of the font,
for instance
| "Lato is a sanserif typeface family". You only need one description
| per parent.
Well, I have a plan to have a family class in the cache. it will be able
to generate the summary like the above automatically with it I believe.
That feature isn't yet merged into master because it requires bumping the
cache version.
That would be great especially if you expose the WWS family name (after
the cleanups specified by Microsoft) and not the raw family name. That
would also help package reviews I fear a lot of persons do not understand
what a font family is despite the documentation efforts we've made in
guidelines. They just make a package by normal/bold/italic/bolditalic
quartets including when the font has been artificially split upstream to
workaround legacy non-linux software
| * The "Description" is a 2-3 paragraph description of the
font, which
| is optional as it's not currently shown in the mockup. It's included
| here for completeness as it could be shown in the future when the user
| clicks "More info".
Why don't you simply pick it up from the package description? it should
has enough wording and having separate metadata looks duplicate to me
though.
Ideally, the package description and the store description would match
upstream font metadata, unfortunately font metadata state is usually quite
bad.
Regards,
--
Nicolas Mailhot