After an evaluation, GNOME has moved from Bugzilla to GitLab. Learn more about GitLab.
No new issues can be reported in GNOME Bugzilla anymore.
To report an issue in a GNOME project, go to GNOME GitLab.
Do not go to GNOME Gitlab for: Bluefish, Doxygen, GnuCash, GStreamer, java-gnome, LDTP, NetworkManager, Tomboy.
Bug 731632 - add metainfo files for all available plugins
add metainfo files for all available plugins
Status: RESOLVED FIXED
Product: gedit-plugins
Classification: Other
Component: General
unspecified
Other Linux
: Normal enhancement
: ---
Assigned To: Gedit maintainers
Gedit maintainers
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
 
Reported: 2014-06-13 21:19 UTC by Igor Gnatenko
Modified: 2019-03-23 20:32 UTC
See Also:
GNOME target: ---
GNOME version: ---


Attachments
plugins: add metainfo for all available plugins (28.68 KB, patch)
2014-06-13 22:08 UTC, Igor Gnatenko
none Details | Review
plugins: add metainfo for all available plugins (28.78 KB, patch)
2014-06-15 09:08 UTC, Igor Gnatenko
committed Details | Review

Description Igor Gnatenko 2014-06-13 21:19:13 UTC
Hi,

Recently Richard Hughes added the addon component type to AppStream[1]
which is an XML standard that is used by distributors such as Fedora,
Suse and soon to be Arch and Debian to create metadata for various
software center applications.

By creating a metainfo.xml for each plugin, these are then shown next to
the main "gedit" application and allow the user to easily install
extra components.

Richard written a blog post[2] about what upstream software needs to do
to integrate with the KDE and GNOME software centers, and Richard really
appreciate any feedback and help at this stage. The way AppStream works
is that it has to be build upstream by the distro, so we'd need to have
the files either upstream (or downstream in the distro packages) by
GNOME 3.14 which is quite a few months away.

[1]http://www.freedesktop.org/software/appstream/docs/
[2]http://blogs.gnome.org/hughsie/2014/06/11/application-addons-in-gnome-software/


I'm working on it. Patches will be available in 1 hour.
Comment 1 Sébastien Wilmet 2014-06-13 21:27:34 UTC
Note that gedit itself comes with a set of plugins. And gedit-plugins contains another set of plugins. So there are normally only two packages: gedit and gedit-plugins. (Plus other plugins like gedit-code-assistance which have their own packages).

Is it better to create a metainfo.xml for each plugin, or each _set_ of plugins?
Comment 2 Igor Gnatenko 2014-06-13 21:34:22 UTC
(In reply to comment #1)
> Note that gedit itself comes with a set of plugins. And gedit-plugins contains
> another set of plugins. So there are normally only two packages: gedit and
> gedit-plugins. (Plus other plugins like gedit-code-assistance which have their
> own packages).
> 
> Is it better to create a metainfo.xml for each plugin, or each _set_ of
> plugins?
I'm creating for each plugin. ;)
Comment 3 Igor Gnatenko 2014-06-13 21:35:06 UTC
(In reply to comment #1)
> Note that gedit itself comes with a set of plugins. And gedit-plugins contains
> another set of plugins. So there are normally only two packages: gedit and
> gedit-plugins. (Plus other plugins like gedit-code-assistance which have their
> own packages).
> 
> Is it better to create a metainfo.xml for each plugin, or each _set_ of
> plugins?
In Fedora we're splitted plugins to separate packages. We with pbor talked about that.
Comment 4 Igor Gnatenko 2014-06-13 21:41:24 UTC
FYI:
15:45 < kalev> nacho, pbor: hey, we were talking about gedit-plugins and how to show them in the gnome-software UI
15:45 < kalev> nacho, pbor: would you guys prefer to show all individual plugins from gedit separately, or as one line?
15:45 < kalev> nacho, pbor: or to put it another way, should they be installable one by one, or all together?
15:46 -!- svillar [~sergio@242.Red-81-33-125.dynamicIP.rima-tde.net] has quit [Read error: 148 (No route to host)]
15:46 -!- hughsie-afk-lunch is now known as hughsie
15:46  * hughsie doesn't think a mega-package makes sense
15:47 < hughsie> e.g. gnome-games was split up so that you didn't try to remove aisleroit and the others disappeared too
15:47 -!- stefano [~stefano@pc-facchini.imag.fr] has quit [Leaving]
15:47 < elad> yeah, it doesn't. Either put all the plugins in the main gedit package (with no mention of it in Software), or separate plugins to subpackages
15:48 < pbor> hughsie, kalev: no strong opinion... they are bundled because otherwise the maintainance overhead (releasing, packaging rpms etc) would be too high
15:48 < pbor> but if g-s shows them separately that is ok with me
15:48 < kalev> well, we have two options here
15:49 < pbor> or they could be "gedit power pack" or something like that :-)
15:49 < pbor> though they are not that powerful... :-)
15:49 < kalev> one of them is to have a single gedit-plugins.metainfo.xml that says 'gedit power pack'
15:49 < kalev> and the other one is to split all the plugins up downstream
15:49 < kalev> and ship a separate metainfo file for each plugin
15:50 < kalev> if we keep them in a single package downstream and ship individual metainfo files, things get very very weird:
15:50 -!- purestrain [~michael@aftr-37-201-225-91.unity-media.net] has joined #gnome-design
15:50 < kalev> removing one plugin in the UI would remove 20 others
15:50 < elad> third option is to put them all in the main gedit package and not show them in Software.
15:50 < pbor> I have no problem splitting the rpms downstream, especially since they can be split in a single .spec file iirc
15:51 < pbor> the important thing is to not split upstream
15:51 < kalev> yep, it's pretty easy to split them downstream, but it should be communicated to other distros as well
15:51 < pbor> we simply do not have the bandwidth to release 10 modules
15:53 < hughsie> right, i think splitting downstream into subpakages is exactly what we want here
Comment 5 Igor Gnatenko 2014-06-13 22:08:05 UTC
Created attachment 278428 [details] [review]
plugins: add metainfo for all available plugins

Reference: https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=731632
Signed-off-by: Igor Gnatenko <i.gnatenko.brain@gmail.com>
Comment 6 Paolo Borelli 2014-06-15 09:00:15 UTC
Review of attachment 278428 [details] [review]:

Thanks for the work, the build system changes look ok to me.

I added some comments about rewording some of the descriptions. Once you amend those, feel free to push.

::: plugins/bracketcompletion/gedit-bracketcompletion.metainfo.xml.in
@@ +5,3 @@
+  <extends>gedit.desktop</extends>
+  <_name>Bracket Completion</_name>
+  <_summary>Add automatically a closing bracket when you insert one</_summary>

"Automatically add" sounds better to me than "Add automatically", but I am not a native speaker

::: plugins/charmap/gedit-charmap.metainfo.xml.in
@@ +5,3 @@
+  <extends>gedit.desktop</extends>
+  <_name>Charmap</_name>
+  <_summary>Select characters from a charactermap</_summary>

charactermap -> character map (split the words)

::: plugins/colorschemer/gedit-colorschemer.metainfo.xml.in
@@ +5,3 @@
+  <extends>gedit.desktop</extends>
+  <_name>Color Scheme Editor</_name>
+  <_summary>Easy editing your source code color scheme</_summary>

Create and edit the color scheme used for syntax highlighting

::: plugins/git/gedit-git.metainfo.xml.in
@@ +4,3 @@
+  <extends>gedit.desktop</extends>
+  <_name>Git</_name>
+  <_summary>Provides Git integration</_summary>

This is not 100% correct, the plugin does not support commit etc. I'd say something like

Use git information to display which lines and files changed since last commit

::: plugins/wordcompletion/gedit-wordcompletion.metainfo.xml.in
@@ +5,3 @@
+  <extends>gedit.desktop</extends>
+  <_name>Word completion</_name>
+  <_summary>Word completion using the completion framework</_summary>

Propose automatic completion using words already present in the document
Comment 7 Igor Gnatenko 2014-06-15 09:08:51 UTC
Created attachment 278471 [details] [review]
plugins: add metainfo for all available plugins

Reference: https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=731632
Signed-off-by: Igor Gnatenko <i.gnatenko.brain@gmail.com>
Comment 9 Igor Gnatenko 2014-06-15 09:11:32 UTC
Review of attachment 278471 [details] [review]:

committed. Thanks for review.