[Bug 273341] Porter's handbook: a meta port should describe itself as such

https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=273341

Fernando Apesteguía <fernape@FreeBSD.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|New                         |Open
                 CC|                            |fernape@FreeBSD.org

--- Comment #1 from Fernando Apesteguía <fernape@FreeBSD.org> ---
(In reply to Graham Perrin ◐ from comment #0)

>From experience, and from e.g. <https://www.freshports.org>
>/search.php?stype=shortdescription&method=match&query=meta&num=500&
>orderby=port&orderbyupdown=asc&search=Search&format=html&minimal=1&
>branch=head>, I assume that it's good practice for a meta port to describe >itself as such in: 

I don't think that query is right. The very first result shows a port that
contains *meta*data.

What you want to do is probably:

https://www.freshports.org/search.php?stype=makefile&method=match&query=metaport&num=500&orderby=port&orderbyupdown=asc&search=Search&format=html&minimal=1&branch=head

Where you search for "metaport" in the Makefile, since metaports should
USES=metaport as described in the handbook 

https://docs.freebsd.org/en/books/porters-handbook/book/#uses-metaport
https://docs.freebsd.org/en/books/porters-handbook/book/#staging

"Metaports should use USES=metaport. It sets up defaults for ports that do not
fetch, build, or install anything."

IMHO, saying that a port is a metaport *in the description* shows the user an
internal detail he/she should not need at all. I rather have descriptions like
"The GNOME desktop environment" than what we have now ("Metaport for the GNOME
integrated X11 desktop").
From the point of view of the user, is just a normal port.

Also note the inconsistency in the descriptions: "meta-port", "meta port",
"meta package"...

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.