On Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 03:40:28PM -0400, Jeremy Bicha wrote: > Unless those plugins actually depend on each other (and aren't just > packaged that way), it doesn't make sense. (And the UI is really bad. > Just try it in a few hours. You may need to make sure the background > gnome-software service is killed first so that the latest metadata is > used.)
I don't have appstream installed, nor I plan on installing it. Like I
don't have gnome-software installed either…
> It is ok for the hexchat package to also contains plugins with their
> AppStream metadata (but there won't be checkboxes for any of those
> plugins so I don't recommend this here).
Oh, I see.
I understood that, but I did the leap from "main packages contains
plugins and the appstream files can be there" to the separate plugins
packages on my own reckoning it would have been fine.
> It is not ok for a separate hexchat-plugins package to include
> multiple plugins because it won't work properly in GNOME Software.
JFTR, I dislike such plain approach "the tooling is suboptimal, so the
world needs to adapt to such suboptimal tooling", and (even worse!)
"the tooling is suboptimal, so the specification needs to adapt to it"
which is the worst that could happen in any engineering situation.
Anyway, would it be fine for you if I split those plugins in 3 binary
packages, and make hexchat-plugins depend on all of them?
And if so, I'd use names like 'hexchat-plugin-sysinfo', etc?
--
regards,
Mattia Rizzolo
GPG Key: 66AE 2B4A FCCF 3F52 DA18 4D18 4B04 3FCD B944 4540 .''`.
more about me: https://mapreri.org : :' :
Launchpad user: https://launchpad.net/~mapreri `. `'`
Debian QA page: https://qa.debian.org/developer.php?login=mattia `-
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
