Checking port option descriptions

[Miroslav Lachman]

Warren Block wrote on 09/16/2016 17:52:
> Ports options ask the user to make a decision on whether to enable that
> option.  Option descriptions are critical for this, giving the user
> information to help them make that decision.
>
> Unfortunately, what is clear to the porter is often not clear to a user.
> The Porter's Handbook says "Do not just repeat the name", but this still
> happens, either exactly, or with a description that adds no information.
>
> For example:
>
>    XYZ    Enable XYZ
>
> The description here adds no information. The name of the option itself
> tells the reader that this is for enabling or disabling a feature. The
> option asks them to make a decision, whether to enable that option or
> not, or even just to leave it at the default, but does not give them any
> help in making that decision. Let's improve that:
>
>    XYZ    Include protocols for use with XYZ servers
>
> This gives the reader some additional details.
>
>
> Because so many of the option descriptions have predictable
> no-added-information styles, it is possible to write a program that
> detects these. In the process of doing that, I found some actual bugs in
> descriptions that were not caught by other parts of the ports build or
> portlint.

There are even more confusion. Some options are used by many ports but 
their real meaning / impact on each port is different.

The next problem is options doing nothing to "this" port but just pull 
some other port as dependency because maintainer thinks it is useful for 
the end users to have installed it too - this should be avoided (IMHO).

I don't have port names in hand but I know I saw this in the past.

Miroslav Lachman