[gentoo-dev] Re: Projects without a homepage, and valid contents of HOMEPAGE (per bug 239268)

[Steve Long]

Peter Volkov wrote:

> Robert Buchholz ?????:
>> Thilo Bangert wrote:
>> > HOMEPAGE="http://this-package-has-no-homepage.gentoo.org/"
>>
>> Why not use our package site for this, i.e.
>> HOMEPAGE="http://packages.gentoo.org/package/${CAT}/${PN}"
>
> This is not homepage. HOMEPAGE should point to "package dependent
> information" or in other words to upstream.
Er it is package-specific, and this is for where there is no upstream.

> Same stands to existent or nonexistent link on gentoo.org or any other
> domain. This is even worth as this solution also makes users to open
> another page which just tell them that homepage does not exist...
>
No, the packages site links to a forum search (I'd personally make that
a 'site:forums.gentoo.org' google search across the board, since it's so
much handier, and get some adsense bucks while you're there;) and a
bugzilla search, as well as giving information about all the available
versions in the tree. You should check it out ;p
 
> So I think if HOMEPAGE does not exist then it's better either put some
> constant there or better make it empty. If we wish, for packages with
> empty HOMEPAGE we can teach tools like emerge -s or eix to show "Home
> page unknown" or "Homepage does not exist". Simple and clear, what else
> do we need? :)
>
An easy way for Gentoo users to contact other people using the software;
given that it's available on Gentoo, and officially dead as far as Gentoo
is aware, having the cli interface display that url (however formulated) is
a plus in support terms, and maybe one day getting the package resurrected.
A gui wrapper like himerge would display the link as clickable, as would a
suitably configured xterm.

So while I agree the empty value in the ebuild is the way to go, I'd
personally like it a lot if Portage at least displayed a useful url (and
the website was ok with it.) If you're going that far for the official
mangler and the site, it seems like something to mandate/specify (I
really /don't/ want to file that bug;)

Is there at least consensus that the above formulation wrt user-display, and
zero-length, would be useful?

(Leaving aside concerns over backward-compatibility/EAPI.)