Re: [Evolution-hackers] Additions required to the AppData file

[Richard Hughes <hughsient gmail com>]

On 30 November 2015 at 11:31, Milan Crha <mcrha redhat com> wrote:
> I added also <kudo>UserDocs</kudo> into the Evolution's appdata file,
> because it has a user documentation.

Great, thanks.

> What about the <kudo>RecentRelease</kudo>, it applies to the evolution
> products (they follow GNOME release cadence), but I dind't get from
> your document whether it's just one of the kudos which the distribution
> sets, not the software itself.

That's one we set automatically.

> I'm wondering whether that "ModernToolkit" is relevant for the addons,
> because those addons cannot run without the evolution (or other
> client). I added them anyway.

I'm not sure either; I don't think it matters.

> I also tried the `appstream-util validate` on the result files, and the
> evolution's appdata file has missing <summary/> and <name/>, but as
> neither gedit has them, I didn't add them.

We use the name in the .desktop file if they are missing, although if
we're using this fallback we can't actually validate the file without
looking at both. Most projects just include the same data in both
places (the .desktop and the appdata file) as it's deduplicated before
the translators see it anyway.

> I also noticed with this
> tool that it doesn't like <project_license>LGPL</project_license>. I do
> not understand why or what it expects there for the LGPL. I tried
> `licensecheck` on the evolution-data-server/camel and it reports plain
> LGPL there too, thus I'd expect that the `appstream-util validate`
> would understand it as well. This is with libappstream-glib-0.5.1-
> 2.fc23.x86_64.

LGPL isn't a valid SPDX licence string; I think you want "LGPL-2.1"
based on https://spdx.org/licenses/

Thanks,

Richard.