As talked with koobs@ while porting py-gmailfs-fuse port, we reached to a conclusion that it's good idea to have fuse-related ports under a virtual category.
So As I read on Handbook (thanks to mentor mat@ ;D) I opened this PR for requesting it.
I was (perhaps incorrect) of the impression virtual categories (those not existing as subdirectories of /usr/ports) were 'created and seen' upon their use in ports themselves and didn't need to have anything special done to create them.
We'll want to do the same for django ports. Currently the 'defacto' convention is to the custom (freebsd imposed) django- prefix for portnames, which is inconsistent with their upstream names and makes port/pkg name discovery and searching within and outside (google) freebsd more difficult and potentially confusing for users.
As per Porters Handbook :
"Proposing a new virtual category is similar to the above but much less involved, since no ports will actually have to move. In this case, the only patches to include in the PR would be those to add the new category to CATEGORIES of the affected ports."
I'm all for categories. There's 40-ish fuse ports, AFAICT, and about 100 Django ports. The minimum count is arbitrary but >40 feels like an appropriate yardstick to me.
We should really have R (220 ports), rails (125), and apache (115) categories too.
The reading of the porters handbook appears to not require portmgr@ (or any other) explicit approval, short of perhaps some initial or general consensus among committers & maintainers of their respective (group) ports.
Accordingly, assign myself as interim/fallback parent issue (goal) coordinator. If someone else would like to coordinate the higher level issue, please assign yourself.
Anyone who is interested in creating virtual categories for a particular group of tasks create sub-tasks blocking this one. I'll do so for */django-*.
@Adam Can you create new sub-issues for your suggestions? (cc'ing appropriate people)
Each of the subtasks should (eventually) contain a patch updating existing ports to add the new virtual category (as per handbook), and any appropriate renames/moves.
@portmgr, if the reading of the handbook is incorrect, and explicit and specific approval is required, please re-assign to yourselves, mention the approval requirement, and please update the handbook text to clarify (a sub-task would be nice for this)
Note: will require a big update to the MOVED file to do this.
(In reply to Mark Felder from comment #6)
Shouldn't for purely virtual categories, no?
(In reply to Adam Weinberger from comment #7)
Correct, ignore me. I misunderstood this when I read these tickets at first. I thought we wanted new real categories in the ports tree for django and fusefs to make it easier for users to search.
I don't know how well virtual categories will solve the searching problem, but it won't hurt.
Can you point us to the discussion that took place on ports@ where the consensus was to create those new categories ?
(In reply to Mathieu Arnold from comment #9)
Well, actually (as I told in first comment) it was a chat with koobs@ not a general discussion.
it was not on ports@ ``:-] (but on Twitter PM)
Well, two persons talking over a tweet hardly makes it a consensus. Opening the PR may have been a bit premature.
Please follow the procedure described in https://www.freebsd.org/doc/en/books/porters-handbook/makefile-categories.html#proposing-categories
(In reply to Mathieu Arnold from comment #11)
It is perfectly reasonable and acceptable to create issues as placeholders or documented (public) artifacts to allow for consensus to be built, discuss potential implications or other considerations for topics that may not necessarily or immediately be at a 'ready' to commit stage.