Dne 17. 10. 24 v 9:13 Milan Crha napsal(a):
On Thu, 2024-10-17 at 09:04 +0200, Vít Ondruch wrote:
Where is the reviews data stored actually?
Hi,
it's on the ODRS server. The option
gsettings get org.gnome.software review-server
defaults to:
https://odrs.gnome.org/1.0/reviews
On Thursday, 17 October 2024 at 09:42, Milan Crha wrote:
> On Thu, 2024-10-17 at 09:37 +0200, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski
> wrote:
> > org.mozilla.firefox.desktop
>
> Hi,
> the references the app [1], thus as long as the
> Firefox has its without the ".desktop" suffix... You can spec
On Thu, 2024-10-17 at 09:37 +0200, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski
wrote:
> org.mozilla.firefox.desktop
Hi,
the references the app [1], thus as long as the
Firefox has its without the ".desktop" suffix... You can specify
the multiple times, as the [1] claims.
Bye,
Mila
On Thursday, 17 October 2024 at 09:16, Vít Ondruch wrote:
[...]
> Just out of curiosity, do we still have some FF extensions or are they
> broken, because I can't see any in G-S.
I maintain three:
mozilla-noscript, mozilla-ublock-origin and mozilla-privacy-badger
They all have:
...
org.mozi
On Thu, 2024-10-17 at 09:01 +0200, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski
wrote:
> we had that issue with all packaged Firefox extensions when Firefox
> ID was changed to org.mozilla.firefox .
Hi,
I recall that. The Firefox is kinda special:
the Fedora Flatpak says: org.mozilla.Firefox
the RPM
On Thu, 2024-10-17 at 09:04 +0200, Vít Ondruch wrote:
> Where is the reviews data stored actually?
Hi,
it's on the ODRS server. The option
gsettings get org.gnome.software review-server
defaults to:
https://odrs.gnome.org/1.0/reviews/api
How much "editable" the data stored there
Dne 17. 10. 24 v 9:01 Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski napsal(a):
On Thursday, 17 October 2024 at 08:45, Milan Crha wrote:
On Wed, 2024-10-16 at 18:53 +0200, Vít Ondruch wrote:
Maybe changing the .desktop file is harmless and good thing after
all.
Hi,
if I'm not mistaken, changing the .
Dne 17. 10. 24 v 8:45 Milan Crha napsal(a):
On Wed, 2024-10-16 at 18:53 +0200, Vít Ondruch wrote:
Maybe changing the .desktop file is harmless and good thing after
all.
Hi,
if I'm not mistaken, changing the .desktop filename is not a problem,
as long as all the appstream data is proper
On Thursday, 17 October 2024 at 08:45, Milan Crha wrote:
> On Wed, 2024-10-16 at 18:53 +0200, Vít Ondruch wrote:
> > Maybe changing the .desktop file is harmless and good thing after
> > all.
>
> Hi,
> if I'm not mistaken, changing the .desktop filename is not a problem,
> as long as all the
On Wed, 2024-10-16 at 18:53 +0200, Vít Ondruch wrote:
> Maybe changing the .desktop file is harmless and good thing after
> all.
Hi,
if I'm not mistaken, changing the .desktop filename is not a problem,
as long as all the appstream data is properly updated. Changing the
in the appstream d
Dne 15. 10. 24 v 17:11 Barry napsal(a):
On 14 Oct 2024, at 15:31, Vít Ondruch wrote:
However, if you check the vim-X11 package, it provides `gvim.desktop` file. I
think this might be common case for other Apps listed in [1].
I think this needs renaming to the org.vim.Vim.desktop in a way
> On 14 Oct 2024, at 15:31, Vít Ondruch wrote:
> However, if you check the vim-X11 package, it provides `gvim.desktop` file. I
> think this might be common case for other Apps listed in [1].
I think this needs renaming to the org.vim.Vim.desktop in a wayland world.
I recall making such a fix
Sorry for resurrecting this old thread. But it is again (still?) relevant.
I have just noticed that for example GVim is not visible in Gnome
Software. The failure listed here [1] is "Vetos Has no Icon" and I
believe this [2] is the fix.
The situation is pretty complex to my taste. But in t
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
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
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
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
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 ab
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
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 "appstre
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 "
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 resi
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 no
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 opti
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 s
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_usa
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
* cer
27 matches
Mail list logo
