Re: git: b7f05445c00f - main - Add WWW entries to port Makefiles

* Stefan Eßer (se@freebsd.org) wrote:

> > The order was and will remain defined as pkg-descr lines and WWW
> > items are ordered. For the cases where only a single item is allowed,
> > taking the first item was and is the obvious option.
> 
> This did not work in the past (many pkg-descr files did not have
> the relevant URL as the first entry) and is unlikely to work in
> the future.

I do not understand how it can "not work". If you think that the
relevant URL is not the first one, just reorder URLs. Limiting it
with one URL does not solve anything: the single url may still not
be relevant, and hiding other URLs in another place makes it harder
to fix and takes away possibility for a user to decide which URL
is more relevant for them.

> The documented use of the WWW field in the Makefile is to provide
> a link to a project website or other documentation that helps the
> end user e.g. to configure and use the software.
>
> This variable is not meant to let the port maintainer know where
> to use for updates, for example. And most users will not be
> interested in the GitHub repository used to fetch the sources,
> but rather in a link to a WiKi or other project resource that
> is oriented towards the end user.

Sure, and there's nothing suggesting against supporting multiple
links.

> A single link with information for this specific purpose is most
> useful, easy to check and maintain.

Deficient information is NOT useful. Links spread into multiple
places are NOT easy to check and maintain.

> in pkg-descr files either pointed at a generic framework site
> (e.g. rubyonrails.org)

That's a single case. There's no point in these links IMO.

> or the repository (which oftenn does not provide any relevant
> usage information, but is oriented towards developers and porters).

As often, the repository is the only source of information.

> > Sometimes that's the case, sometimes not. For instance, most python
> > modules have both PyPI url and git repository, none of these is in
> > fact an "offical homepage" and both are equally important.
> 
> The end user is interested in the PyPI URL. The git repository is
> of interest to developers

The thing with python modules is that their target audience is
developers.

> > There already is, it's repology.org
> 
> Please show me how that solves the issue I'm talking about.
>
> There are hundreds of URLs that point at server hosts that do not
> exist in the DNS. And many more URLs that are otherwise stale, but
> which need more effort to be verified.

https://repology.org/repository/freebsd/problems

-- 
Dmitry Marakasov   .
amdmi3@amdmi3.ru  ..:  https://github.com/AMDmi3  https://amdmi3.ru/