Fedora 22 and missing applications

[Michael Schwendt]

On Wed, 27 May 2015 12:47:04 +0100, Richard Hughes wrote:

> It's not only the "green" applications that make the cut, the amber
> ones go in too.

Okay. Glad to hear we're not supposed to "fix" something like that
post release.

> Having keywords makes the search functionality much
> better, but isn't actually required for your application to be shown
> in the software center.

What would they add that's not found within the RPM package %description
and %summary already?

> It would be disingenuous at best to show OK
> and use a green line when we're missing this extra data. I'll probably
> start nagging people about missing keywords in F23, i.e. real soon
> now.
> 
> > There is no such warning in the build.log output:
> 
> I guess we should make desktop-file-validate check for keywords too,
> although they're not actually *required* to be a valid .desktop file.

Anything that *upstream* would see, too, would be the best solution.
Else it becomes a continuous race of upstream releasing files that follow
the specs, and Fedora asking for extra optional (!) things to be added just
to get rid of some warnings. Not even considering the translations of such
keywords.