On Jan 14 13:42:26, [email protected] wrote: > On 2018-01-14 12:34, Jan Stary wrote: > > On Jan 12 11:12:17, [email protected] wrote: > >> On 2018-01-11 22:22, Jan Stary wrote: > >>> What errors exactly will be "fixed" by that? > >> > >> It documents that the upstream homepage is gone for good. That helps to > >> understand this software is most likely a dead project. > > > > Yes, but why set up a webpage for that? > > Well, do you want to include the full text that is no on that wiki page > into base?
Of course not. I believe it is quite enough to mention that the port does not have a homepage defined, and display the maintainer email (if it exists). > >> I think the port notes should only contain information > >> relevant to its usage. > > > > Why? No realy: why do you think the port's notes should _not_ > > mention that the port does not have a homepage (yet an extra > > non-homepage should be set up to say that)? > > Why should users be bothered and actively be informed that a port has no > homepage? Why should users be bothered to go to some non-homepage of the software they just installed? > Users will not care until they actually want to visit the > project homepage. In most cases there is nothing they or we can do about > it. Therefore I see no reason to include this in the port notes. I still believe that if a port does not have homepage, then the simplest, most obvious thing to do is to not define 'homepage' in the Portfile and be done with it. Saying so in the notes was just an alternative to pointing users to the non-homepage.
