How is app information in Ubuntu Software Center maintained?

[Dmitrijs Ledkovs]

On 18 March 2013 17:25, Ma Xiaojun <damage3025 at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 12:42 AM, Dmitrijs Ledkovs
> <dmitrij.ledkov at ubuntu.com> wrote:
>> In practice this means that application should ship the .desktop file
>> and the icon in the main arch:any package where the main executable
>> is.
>
> Sometimes the software is split into several packages and the meta

I know. I simply described the most generic case / standard rule. I'm
sure we have plenty of exceptions and cases where we do want to
advertise packages even if they are not executable at all and don't
have .desktop files. And vice versa, where we need & have .desktop
files, but do not want to explicitly enlist them in USC.

Regards,

Dmitrijs.

> package that would be used in CLI case doesn't contain a desktop file.
> For example, USC advertise "eclipse-platform" as "Eclipse" while
> people would use "s a-g i eclipse"
> https://apps.ubuntu.com/cat/applications/eclipse-platform/
>
> I'm not sure whether USC install suggests packages. If it installs
> suggests package then there is no problem with "Eclipse" since there
> is some sort of circular dependency.
>
>> It should not, ship extra/pointless .desktop files, or mark them to be
>> ignored by USC archive-scanner.
>
> Do you think "Browse C: Drive" is pointless for Wine?
> https://apps.ubuntu.com/cat/applications/wine1.4/
> Or "IBus Hangul Preferences" is pointless for Hangul engine of IBus?
> https://apps.ubuntu.com/cat/applications/ibus-hangul/
>
> Extra .desktop files is due to sometimes DE specific .desktop files are used?
> As this the case for Synaptics.
>
> How to "mark them to be ignored by USC archive-scanner", is it documented?
> I hope such information available nicely in
> http://developer.ubuntu.com/ while I understand such information can
> also be figured by checking archive-scanner's source code :)
>
>> The conf file in the scanner is a point of last resort to fix up
>> things last minute.
>> Ideally updated / corrected desktop files should be in the packages themself.
> Sure.