On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 04:03:36PM +0000, Richard Hughes wrote: > On 11 January 2017 at 15:52, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek > <zbyszek@xxxxxxxxx> 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
