Are AppStream metadata packaging guidelines up to date?

[Otto Urpelainen]

Greetings,

I am a new contributor to Fedora packaging. My actual target is to add 
some applications I use but are not packaged yet. But since adding a new 
package is quite complex and Fedora also places some requirements before 
a contributor is allowed to do that, I have started learning by doing 
some simpler tasks first.

I have been looking at various packages I use personally, trying to find 
some things to improve. I noticed that the gpodder 
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/gpodder package would benefit from 
some work on its AppStream metadata. My first though was to simply make 
it comply with the Packaging Guidelines: AppData 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/AppData/ 
section in Fedora Docs. But, the instructions there lead to a setup that 
is deprecated according to AppStream current specification 
https://www.freedesktop.org/software/appstream/docs/chap-Quickstart.html#sect-Quickstart-DesktopApps. 
This is my first encounter with AppStream, but from the guidelines page 
naming it seems that even the name has changed from AppData to AppStream 
after the guidelines were written.

So the question is this: Should Fedora packages really follow the 
guidance from /Packaging Guidelines: AppData/, or should that page be 
updated?

Perhaps I should also explain what is wrong with the gpodder package: 
Its spec file contains an inline /appdata.xml/ that is installed to 
//usr/share/appdata/. However, since /appdata.xml/ was added, upstream 
has started shipping its own AppStream file. That is also installed, but 
to //usr/share/metainfo/, with a different file name, different 
application id and diffrent content. Dropping the inline version and 
installing only the upstream version seems clear enough, but to me it 
seems like the Packaging Guidelines give bad advice on how to go about that.

Regards,
Otto Urpelainen

[Vít Ondruch]

Hi Otto,

I am not sure I completely understand your question. However looking at 
gpodder, I think that this:

~~~

cat > $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_datadir}/appdata/%{name}.appdata.xml <<EOF

~~~

should be changed to:

~~~

cat > $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_metainfodir}/%{name}.appdata.xml <<EOF

~~~

If you have any specific concerns about correctness of guidelines, I'd 
suggest to open PR proposing fix here:

https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/pull-requests

That way, it would be probably more obvious what is the real problem and 
what is the suggested change. If nothing else, I think that the first 
`AppData specification page` link could be updated, because the target 
http://people.freedesktop.org/~hughsient/appdata/ redirects elsewhere. 
But of course this needs somebody to fix it or propose such change.

Vít

Dne 16. 01. 21 v 17:34 Otto Urpelainen napsal(a):
> Greetings,
>
> I am a new contributor to Fedora packaging. My actual target is to add 
> some applications I use but are not packaged yet. But since adding a 
> new package is quite complex and Fedora also places some requirements 
> before a contributor is allowed to do that, I have started learning by 
> doing some simpler tasks first.
>
> I have been looking at various packages I use personally, trying to 
> find some things to improve. I noticed that the gpodder 
> https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/gpodder package would benefit 
> from some work on its AppStream metadata. My first though was to 
> simply make it comply with the Packaging Guidelines: AppData 
> https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/AppData/ 
> section in Fedora Docs. But, the instructions there lead to a setup 
> that is deprecated according to AppStream current specification 
> https://www.freedesktop.org/software/appstream/docs/chap-Quickstart.html#sect-Quickstart-DesktopApps. 
> This is my first encounter with AppStream, but from the guidelines 
> page naming it seems that even the name has changed from AppData to 
> AppStream after the guidelines were written.
>
> So the question is this: Should Fedora packages really follow the 
> guidance from /Packaging Guidelines: AppData/, or should that page be 
> updated?
>
> Perhaps I should also explain what is wrong with the gpodder package: 
> Its spec file contains an inline /appdata.xml/ that is installed to 
> //usr/share/appdata/. However, since /appdata.xml/ was added, upstream 
> has started shipping its own AppStream file. That is also installed, 
> but to //usr/share/metainfo/, with a different file name, different 
> application id and diffrent content. Dropping the inline version and 
> installing only the upstream version seems clear enough, but to me it 
> seems like the Packaging Guidelines give bad advice on how to go about 
> that.
>
> Regards,
> Otto Urpelainen
> _______________________________________________
> packaging mailing list -- [e-mail]
> To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]
> Fedora Code of Conduct: 
> https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
> List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
> List Archives: 
> https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/[e-mail]....

[Vít Ondruch]

Dne 18. 01. 21 v 9:22 Vít Ondruch napsal(a):
> Hi Otto,
>
> I am not sure I completely understand your question. However looking 
> at gpodder, I think that this:
> cat > $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_datadir}/appdata/%{name}.appdata.xml <<EOF
>
> should be changed to:
> cat > $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_metainfodir}/%{name}.appdata.xml <<EOF
>
> If you have any specific concerns about correctness of guidelines, I'd 
> suggest to open PR proposing fix here:
>
> https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/pull-requests

There is different thread about this topic on fedora-devel, so this is 
probably relevant ticket:

https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/944

But PR with specific proposal would probably help to move this forward.

Vít
> That way, it would be probably more obvious what is the real problem 
> and what is the suggested change. If nothing else, I think that the 
> first `AppData specification page` link could be updated, because the 
> target http://people.freedesktop.org/~hughsient/appdata/ redirects 
> elsewhere. But of course this needs somebody to fix it or propose such 
> change.
>
> Vít
>
> Dne 16. 01. 21 v 17:34 Otto Urpelainen napsal(a):
> > Greetings,
> >
> > I am a new contributor to Fedora packaging. My actual target is to 
> > add some applications I use but are not packaged yet. But since 
> > adding a new package is quite complex and Fedora also places some 
> > requirements before a contributor is allowed to do that, I have 
> > started learning by doing some simpler tasks first.
> >
> > I have been looking at various packages I use personally, trying to 
> > find some things to improve. I noticed that the gpodder 
> > https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/gpodder package would benefit 
> > from some work on its AppStream metadata. My first though was to 
> > simply make it comply with the Packaging Guidelines: AppData 
> > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/AppData/ 
> > section in Fedora Docs. But, the instructions there lead to a setup 
> > that is deprecated according to AppStream current specification 
> > https://www.freedesktop.org/software/appstream/docs/chap-Quickstart.html#sect-Quickstart-DesktopApps. 
> > This is my first encounter with AppStream, but from the guidelines 
> > page naming it seems that even the name has changed from AppData to 
> > AppStream after the guidelines were written.
> >
> > So the question is this: Should Fedora packages really follow the 
> > guidance from /Packaging Guidelines: AppData/, or should that page be 
> > updated?
> >
> > Perhaps I should also explain what is wrong with the gpodder package: 
> > Its spec file contains an inline /appdata.xml/ that is installed to 
> > //usr/share/appdata/. However, since /appdata.xml/ was added, 
> > upstream has started shipping its own AppStream file. That is also 
> > installed, but to //usr/share/metainfo/, with a different file name, 
> > different application id and diffrent content. Dropping the inline 
> > version and installing only the upstream version seems clear enough, 
> > but to me it seems like the Packaging Guidelines give bad advice on 
> > how to go about that.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Otto Urpelainen
> > _______________________________________________
> > packaging mailing list -- [e-mail]
> > To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]
> > Fedora Code of Conduct: 
> > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
> > List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
> > List Archives: 
> > https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/[e-mail]....
>
> packaging mailing list -- [e-mail]
> To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]
> Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
> List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
> List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/[e-mail]....

[Otto Urpelainen]

(Sending again, went only to Vit first)

Vít Ondruch kirjoitti 18.1.2021 klo 10.26:
> Dne 18. 01. 21 v 9:22 Vít Ondruch napsal(a):
> > Hi Otto,
> >
> > I am not sure I completely understand your question. However looking 
> > at gpodder, I think that this:
> > cat > $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_datadir}/appdata/%{name}.appdata.xml <<EOF
> >
> > should be changed to:
> > cat > $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_metainfodir}/%{name}.appdata.xml <<EOF

Turns out there were multiple problems here. Combined with me being 
quite lost led to unclear question, I suppose. Good news is that I 
already reached a solution for gpodder in this pull request 
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/gpodder/pull-request/2. The pull 
request makes gpodder follow the guidelines.

Which leaves only the question about validity of the guidelines open. To 
illustrate, while your proposed fix seems logical if you consult 
AppStream documentation, using _metainfodir is against Fedora Packaging 
Guidelines.
> > If you have any specific concerns about correctness of guidelines, 
> > I'd suggest to open PR proposing fix here:
> >
> > https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/pull-requests
>
> There is different thread about this topic on fedora-devel, so this is 
> probably relevant ticket:
>
> https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/944
>
> But PR with specific proposal would probably help to move this forward.

Yes, the devel list thread and linked issue are the same as my question 
about the guidelines.

I suppose I could open a pull request. It feels a bit strange to start 
contributing with a change proposal that has such a wide effect. But 
since clearly I am not the only one having the same question, I suppose 
I can send a proposal in.

Otto

[Otto Urpelainen]

Otto Urpelainen kirjoitti 18.1.2021 klo 17.55:
> (Sending again, went only to Vit first)
>
> Vít Ondruch kirjoitti 18.1.2021 klo 10.26:
> > Dne 18. 01. 21 v 9:22 Vít Ondruch napsal(a):
> > > Hi Otto,
> > >
> > > I am not sure I completely understand your question. However looking 
> > > at gpodder, I think that this:
> > > cat > $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_datadir}/appdata/%{name}.appdata.xml <<EOF
> > >
> > > should be changed to:
> > > cat > $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_metainfodir}/%{name}.appdata.xml <<EOF
>
> Turns out there were multiple problems here. Combined with me being 
> quite lost led to unclear question, I suppose. Good news is that I 
> already reached a solution for gpodder in this pull request 
> https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/gpodder/pull-request/2. The pull 
> request makes gpodder follow the guidelines.
>
> Which leaves only the question about validity of the guidelines open. 
> To illustrate, while your proposed fix seems logical if you consult 
> AppStream documentation, using _metainfodir is against Fedora 
> Packaging Guidelines.
> > > If you have any specific concerns about correctness of guidelines, 
> > > I'd suggest to open PR proposing fix here:
> > >
> > > https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/pull-requests
> >
> > There is different thread about this topic on fedora-devel, so this 
> > is probably relevant ticket:
> >
> > https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/944
> >
> > But PR with specific proposal would probably help to move this forward.
>
> Yes, the devel list thread and linked issue are the same as my 
> question about the guidelines.
>
> I suppose I could open a pull request. It feels a bit strange to start 
> contributing with a change proposal that has such a wide effect. But 
> since clearly I am not the only one having the same question, I 
> suppose I can send a proposal in.
>
> Otto

Here we go: https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/pull-request/1041#

Otto