metainfo.xml: Add missing release timestamp attribute #4346
Conversation
|
The python script produces different timestamps for the same date on CI compared to local? |
Oof, looks like I need to hardcode the timezone, otherwise it will interpret the date as local time. |
|
https://freedesktop.org/software/appstream/docs/chap-Metadata.html#tag-releases
The UNIX epoch is second since 1970-01-01 00:00 UTC So there should be no issue to hard code it. |
|
The timestamp isn't really needed despite the misleading error message I posted on Zulip. Flathub is fine with just the |
| @@ -98,7 +98,7 @@ | |||
| Do not edit it manually. | |||
| --> | |||
| <releases> | |||
| <release version="2.3.1" date="2021-09-29" type="stable"> | |||
| <release version="2.3.1" type="stable" date="2021-09-29" timestamp="1632866400"> | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
1632866400 converts to 2021-09-28 22:00:00 not 2021-09-29
Can we just drop the redundant date property?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think we should do the opposite and drop the timestamp property.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
If it is sufficient. I just thought timestamp it is mandatory for flathub.
attribute-missing : has no timestamp
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Why not just keep both? It's literally one line and since they are autogenerated, they can't get out of sync.
Before, we only added the `date` attribute. The `timestamp` doesn't carry any additional information, but it's required for flatpak: https://mixxx.zulipchat.com/#narrow/stream/109171-development/topic/Flatpak.20build/near/255671054
Holzhaus
force-pushed
the
metainfo-timestamp
branch
from
30652bd to
d5ea821
Compare
Fixed. |
Before, we only added the
dateattribute. Thetimestampdoesn'tcarry any additional information, but it's required for flatpak:
https://mixxx.zulipchat.com/#narrow/stream/109171-development/topic/Flatpak.20build/near/255671054