svn commit: r476670 - in head/devel: . rubygem-solve

[Mark Felder]

> On Aug 8, 2018, at 17:18, Adam Weinberger <adamw at adamw.org> wrote:
> 
> On Wed, Aug 8, 2018 at 3:57 PM Ryan Steinmetz <zi at freebsd.org> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> On (08/08/18 23:34), Mathieu Arnold wrote:
>>>>> Ryan,
>>>>> 
>>>>> You've just added a number of ports with uninformative pkg-descrs, and
>>>>> unhelpful COMMENT strings. These aren't merely formalities. Users
>>>>> should be able to read the pkg-descr and understand if it's the right
>>>>> package for them, and COMMENT is the first target for searches.
>>>>> Please, go back over them and, at the very least, expand the pkg-descr
>>>>> files with more information. As a general rule, pkg-descr should NEVER
>>>>> be the same text as the COMMENT.
>>>> 
>>>> Adam,
>>>> 
>>>> These are the description strings from authors of the code.  They came from
>>>> either rubygems.org and/or the gem source repository.  For example, in the
>>>> case of rubygem-solve:
>>>> 
>>>> https://rubygems.org/gems/solve
>>>> 
>>>> https://github.com/berkshelf/solve
>>>> 
>>>> If you have any specific things you would like to see added to any of the
>>>> individual ports, please let me know.
>>> 
>>> pkg-descr must contain sentences, something that can be read. It must at
>>> least be two lines long, so that it is descriptive enough.  The fact
>>> that upstream is crappy does not mean you can put he same crap in the
>>> ports tree.  It is your job as committer to make sure that ports conform
>>> to our policies and requirements.  If upstream does not provide a better
>>> decription, create one, basd on your knowledge of the software.
>> 
>> 
>> https://svnweb.freebsd.org/ports/head/devel/p5-Data-Serializer-Sereal/pkg-descr?revision=401986&view=markup
>> 
>> https://svnweb.freebsd.org/ports/head/net/rubygem-epp-client-afnic/pkg-descr?revision=380380&view=markup
>> 
>> https://svnweb.freebsd.org/ports/head/net/rubygem-epp-client-smallregistry/pkg-descr?view=markup
>> 
>> https://svnweb.freebsd.org/ports/head/net/rubygem-epp-client-secdns/pkg-descr?revision=380380&view=markup
> 
> Ryan, what exactly is it that you're arguing in favour of here? All I
> requested was for you to please add some helpful information in the
> descrs where possible. So far you've argued that uninformative descrs
> are okay as long as you copied it from someone else, and that
> uninformative descrs are okay because you're not the only one who does
> it.
> 
> I'm trying to get people on board with fixing what's been an ongoing
> problem in our ports. You've agreed with the problem, but not the
> solution. If you have another solution to terse descrs that's
> different from putting more information in descrs, I'm eager to hear
> it.
> 

Adam, please stop. You cannot honestly expect committers to invent descriptions for ports that have zero documentation. I have plenty of ports myself that only exist in the tree because I had to chase dependencies for the software I intended to port. Most of these are libraries that have non-descript or "too-clever" names and of which I have no idea what their function is. It is not my responsibility nor the responsibility of any committer to fix this problem.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 529 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP
URL: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/svn-ports-all/attachments/20180809/e173ddd6/attachment.sig>