Hi all,
Just wondering a few things about the extensions that are available for download in gnome software:
* Are these just from extensions.gnome.org? or a mix of the extensions we have packaged in the Fedora repos, with others from the extensions.gnome.org website?
* In both cases, (extenstions.gnome.org & the repos) where is the appdata coming from that shows them in gnome-software?
* what would be the best way to get more of the extenstions showing in gnome-software? package them up in Fedora, with appdata?
* how does a contributor help with this, i.e. adding things like screenshots, AFAICT none of the extenstions have screenshots.
cheers, ryanlerch
On 29 November 2016 at 22:46, Ryan Lerch rlerch@redhat.com wrote:
- Are these just from extensions.gnome.org? or a mix of the extensions we
have packaged in the Fedora repos, with others from the extensions.gnome.org website?
A mix.
- In both cases, (extenstions.gnome.org & the repos) where is the appdata
coming from that shows them in gnome-software?
We get the metadata from the extensions site directly, i.e. without AppStream. Given the extensions site has only just started being maintained again it might be worth asking if they could allow us to download AppStream XML rather than the custom JSON file that we now use. For packaged apps I don't think AppData files are required for gnome-shell extensions, although if we have them we'd of course use them.
- what would be the best way to get more of the extenstions showing in
gnome-software? package them up in Fedora, with appdata?
Correct. You can add screenshots to the extensions site, but most users don't bother. Also, a lot of the extensions have rubbish descriptions which doesn't exactly help.
- how does a contributor help with this, i.e. adding things like
screenshots, AFAICT none of the extenstions have screenshots.
Some do; in fact I've just added a patch to consume the new metadata added by Jasper: https://git.gnome.org/browse/gnome-software/commit/?id=e223adc5d16f7aac0ad06... so that we actually get the most recent screenshot, not the initial one added.
If you're interested in adding AppData to some of our shell extensions in packages, yell and I'll put together a guide on how to do it. Thanks!
Richard
On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 08:06:09AM +0000, Richard Hughes wrote:
- Are these just from extensions.gnome.org? or a mix of the
extensions we have packaged in the Fedora repos, with others from the extensions.gnome.org website?
A mix.
I see we have "Source: extensions.gnome.org" in the search results listing. The fact that Ryan isn't sure what that means might indicate that we should go back to the designs and see if we can strengthen this. I think there might be some confusion with "source" and "project upstream".
In any case, this is a third party software repository. It seems like a pretty sensible one to include, but we should go through the process at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Workstation/Third_party_software_proposal, and this seems like a good opportunity to use the practical example to finalize the draft and to clear up some of the highlighted questions and TBDs remaining in the document.
On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 08:06:09AM +0000, Richard Hughes wrote:
I see we have "Source: extensions.gnome.org" in the search results listing. The fact that Ryan isn't sure what that means might indicate that we should go back to the designs and see if we can strengthen this. I think there might be some confusion with "source" and "project upstream".
In any case, this is a third party software repository. It seems like a pretty sensible one to include, but we should go through the process at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Workstation/Third_party_software_proposal;, and this seems like a good opportunity to use the practical example to finalize the draft and to clear up some of the highlighted questions and TBDs remaining in the document.
Would it be possible to add a spoke in the Anaconda installer for Fedora Workstation so I could install and enable certain extensions from the beginning? There are some extensions I can't live without like "move clock to the right". I just feel like it's the "workstation way" to have these installed and enabled from the start rather than having to manually set things up later.
Best, Alex G.S.
The general problem with this is that everyone got their own set of 'can't live without' extensions. For example I know that Linus Torvalds got 3 GNOME Shell extensions he feels he can't live without.
And I think that trying to add a generic 'add any extensions you want' UI to the installer seems like the wrong thing to do and adding a lot of 'risk' and complexity to the installer, especially as we have been wanting to streamline the installer experience, not expand it.
Finally if we succeed in continuously improving our upgrade experience the amount of times you or anyone else should need to do a fresh install and thus lose your extensions should hopefully be quickly diminishing.
Christian
----- Original Message -----
From: alxgrtnstrngl@gmail.com To: desktop@lists.fedoraproject.org Sent: Friday, December 2, 2016 3:16:08 PM Subject: Re: third-party repos (design and process) [was Re: Gnome-shell extenstions in Gnome-software]
On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 08:06:09AM +0000, Richard Hughes wrote:
I see we have "Source: extensions.gnome.org" in the search results listing. The fact that Ryan isn't sure what that means might indicate that we should go back to the designs and see if we can strengthen this. I think there might be some confusion with "source" and "project upstream".
In any case, this is a third party software repository. It seems like a pretty sensible one to include, but we should go through the process at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Workstation/Third_party_software_proposal;, and this seems like a good opportunity to use the practical example to finalize the draft and to clear up some of the highlighted questions and TBDs remaining in the document.
Would it be possible to add a spoke in the Anaconda installer for Fedora Workstation so I could install and enable certain extensions from the beginning? There are some extensions I can't live without like "move clock to the right". I just feel like it's the "workstation way" to have these installed and enabled from the start rather than having to manually set things up later.
Best, Alex G.S. _______________________________________________ desktop mailing list -- desktop@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to desktop-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org
On Fri, Dec 2, 2016 at 3:31 PM Christian Schaller cschalle@redhat.com wrote:
The general problem with this is that everyone got their own set of 'can't live without' extensions.he general problem with this is that everyone got their own set of 'can't live without' extensions. For example I know that Linus Torvalds got 3 GNOME Shell extensions he feels he can't live without.
And I think that trying to add a generic 'add any extensions you want' UI to the installer seems like the wrong thing to do and adding a lot of 'risk' and complexity to the installer, especially as we have been wanting to streamline the installer experience, not expand it.
Finally if we succeed in continuously improving our upgrade experience the amount of times you or anyone else should need to do a fresh install and thus lose your extensions should hopefully be quickly diminishing.
Christian
Hi Christian,
Doesn't the upgrade scenario imply a "no-regression" on the part of GS extensions? Is this something we we can really claim, given that mutter (or whatever the GNOME compositor will be called), sooner or later, is going to have to move to the gsk? BTW, this is a genuine question, as it's not clear to me either way:)
Best/Liam
----- Original Message -----
On Fri, Dec 2, 2016 at 3:31 PM Christian Schaller cschalle@redhat.com wrote:
The general problem with this is that everyone got their own set of 'can't live without' extensions.he general problem with this is that everyone got their own set of 'can't live without' extensions. For example I know that Linus Torvalds got 3 GNOME Shell extensions he feels he can't live without.
And I think that trying to add a generic 'add any extensions you want' UI to the installer seems like the wrong thing to do and adding a lot of 'risk' and complexity to the installer, especially as we have been wanting to streamline the installer experience, not expand it.
Finally if we succeed in continuously improving our upgrade experience the amount of times you or anyone else should need to do a fresh install and thus lose your extensions should hopefully be quickly diminishing.
Christian
Hi Christian,
Doesn't the upgrade scenario imply a "no-regression" on the part of GS extensions? Is this something we we can really claim, given that mutter (or whatever the GNOME compositor will be called), sooner or later, is going to have to move to the gsk?
It won't, that's why it has its own copy of clutter included.
BTW, this is a genuine question, as it's not clear to me either way:)
Best/Liam
desktop mailing list -- desktop@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to desktop-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org
On Thu, Dec 8, 2016, 7:29 AM Bastien Nocera bnocera@redhat.com wrote:
----- Original Message -----
On Fri, Dec 2, 2016 at 3:31 PM Christian Schaller cschalle@redhat.com wrote:
The general problem with this is that everyone got their own set of
'can't
live without' extensions.he general problem with this is that everyone
got
their own set of 'can't live without' extensions. For example I know that Linus Torvalds got 3 GNOME Shell extensions he feels he can't live without.
And I think that trying to add a generic 'add any extensions you want'
UI
to the installer seems like the wrong thing to do and adding a lot of 'risk' and complexity to the installer, especially as we have been wanting to streamline the installer experience, not
expand
it.
Finally if we succeed in continuously improving our upgrade experience
the
amount of times you or anyone else should need to do a fresh install and thus lose your extensions should hopefully be quickly diminishing.
Christian
Hi Christian,
Doesn't the upgrade scenario imply a "no-regression" on the part of GS extensions? Is this something we we can really claim, given that mutter (or whatever the GNOME compositor will be called), sooner or later, is going to have
to
move to the gsk?
It won't, that's why it has its own copy of clutter included.
Hi Bastien,
I appreciate the response on this matter. To be clear, we don't expect GS extension breakage at least until the following stable release (GNOME 4, so, 2-3 years following the upcoming 3.24 release)?
Best/Liam
desktop@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Alex G.S. -
Bastien Nocera -
Christian Schaller -
Liam -
Matthew Miller -
Richard Hughes -
Ryan Lerch