[IAEP] [Marketing] Users cannot find Sugar with gnome-software in Fedora 20

[Iain Brown Douglas]

On Sun, 2014-08-31 at 14:56 +0100, Peter Robinson wrote:
> >> > Sugar is not found in a search of Software.
> >> >
> >> > Richard Hughes, the owner of Fedora's Changes/AppInstaller [2], put out
> >> > a call [3] for maintainers to ship an AppData specification [4], so that
> >> > Software will find "registered" apps.
> >> >
> >> > I asked Richard how I could help fix this and this is from his reply.
> >> >
> >> >          [quote]
> >> >          I assume you want to show the sugar-runner application.
> >> >          According to
> >> >          https://alt.fedoraproject.org/pub/alt/screenshots/f21/failed.html#sugar-runner.desktop it's missing a Comment in the .desktop file that means we just can't show it in the search results. It's also missing an AppData file, so a long description and some screenshots.
> >> >
> >> >          If you fix up the .desktop file, and/or add an AppData file that
> >> >          validates, then do a build+update for f21 then it should
> >> >          re-appear in the search results after a couple of days.
> >> >
> >> >          Hope this helps,
> >> >
> >> >          Richard
> >> >          [/quote]
> >> >
> >> > Is anyone already working on this?
> >> >
> >> > Iain Brown Douglas
> >> I tried to get sugar and sugar-runner added to the gnome-software app a
> >> while ago and was told definitively in GIMPNet #fedora-desktop that it
> >> was not going to happen. Good luck; I would really like to see this happen.
> >
> > I thought, too, that this is unlikely.
> 
> Thomas is exactly correct here.
> 
> > GNOME Software Center has ambitions to automagically find "Applications"
> > - and  only packagers have to be concerned with packages and
> > dependencies, not users, my understanding.
> >
> > A quick search of the groups listed by
> > yum grouplist
> > suggests that Libre Office is the only current "group" to be found by
> > Software.
> >
> > Thus Sugar would be leading the way if we succeed!
> 
> Not exactly, it's not particularly hard to do. We basically just need
> a dependency package which contains nothing but the app data and a set
> of dependencies for all the bits we need installed to work. Basically
> a simple package that would equate to the @sugar-desktop group.
> Possibly something like "sugar-runner-desktop" or similar.
> 
> > When I write an AppData specification [4] for Sugar, what will it be
> > registered to?
> 
> It doesn't register, there a number of things that happen, extra data
> is added to the Fedora repositories which then gets indexed by the
> AppData parser
> 
> > Something which PackageKit can recognise as equal to
> >
> > yum groupinstall @sugar-desktop sugar-runner
> >
> > But is it doable?
> 
> It should be quite straight forward. If someone will provide me the
> patch for the AppData plus appropriate screenshots etc I'll do the
> packaging side of things and it should be easy enough to land in
> Fedora 21+
> 
That is excellent news, Peter, thank you for explaining the detail.

Speaking only as a documentation monkey ...

The new app you describe sounds like a sugar-loader.

Regarding naming, I am being a bit of a pedant here, but I always
thought "desktop" does not fit the Sugar metaphor well.

If we can fix a name for this new app, I will rename, and resubmit

sugar3.appdata.xml

with a view to generating the required patch.

Thinking of non-GNOME users, will the yum groupinstall method, co-exist
with the "new" (gnome-only-centred) app?

... or will the app become the default method to, also, set up
sugar-session outside of GNOME?

gnome-software documentation asks us not to involve users with package
information! - in the Software interface, do we have an interest in
*one* element only to select Sugar, or more-than-one?

Just asking, so that documentation avoids future duplication and
ambiguity, and that I have understood the proposal correctly.

Iain

> Peter
> _______________________________________________
> IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
> IAEP at lists.sugarlabs.org
> http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep