Pull request for urbanjost

[urbanjost]

add to registry from @urbanjost

new packages from @urbanjost -- try2

remove M_draw because getting errors although do not see why

switch M_draw with M_pixel

try all modules including those with C files

removed description comments

[LKedward]

Thanks @urbanjost.
The CI checks are failing due to M_Pixel not having a License field in its fpm.toml file.
Let me know when you've added it and I can rerun the CI checks.

Thanks for adding the descriptions, however it was decided (see fortran-lang/fpm#34 (comment)) not to include such meta-data directly in the registry but to instead fetch it from each fpm.toml file.

This data is fetched automatically and stored in index.json which is used for this online page; unfortunately the description field isn't documented so no package currently in the registry defines a description field. If you add a description field to your packages, then it will show up on the website.

[urbanjost]

Mystery solved. The file passed the tests described in the README.md file but failed when pushed and I could not find a message explaining why. I could see some of the code looked like it defined a description field but it was not working right after trying several syntax tries so commented them out. Makes sense to read them from the individual sites but the description field needs documented, as you mentioned. Hopefully try two will look better. The packages page is very nice. The Fortran Wiki page allows anyone to add package descriptions themselves. I haven't had time to look at the page long enough, but curious how it will be moderated. Thanks!

…

On 09/03/2020 4:40 AM Laurence Kedward ***@***.***> wrote: Thanks @urbanjost https://github.com/urbanjost . The CI checks are failing due to M_Pixel not having a License field in its fpm.toml file. Let me know when you've added it and I can rerun the CI checks. Thanks for adding the descriptions, however it was decided (see fortran-lang/fpm#34 (comment) fortran-lang/fpm#34 (comment) ) not to include such meta-data directly in the registry but to instead fetch it from each fpm.toml file. This data is fetched automatically and stored in index.json https://github.com/fortran-lang/fpm-registry/blob/master/index.json which is used for this online page https://fortran-lang.org/packages/fpm ; unfortunately the description field isn't documented so no package currently in the registry defines a description field. If you add a description field to your packages, then it will show up on the website. — You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub #16 (comment) , or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AHDWN3JE5VIFVTXZD6UZZYTSD5JADANCNFSM4QT7H6GA .

[LKedward]

Thanks for the feeback @urbanjost; yes the README should be updated to recommend use of the full validation script (build_index.py) which actually fetches the individual fpm.toml files.
I will also open issues for the description field in fpm.toml which isn't standard currently.

[LKedward]

This is now merged and I'm happy to say your packages are displaying nicely on the website with descriptions! Apologies for the small font size of the descriptions, I will increase this.

(With descriptions, your fpm packages are also more 'searchable' using the package search box.)

[urbanjost]

Thank you for helping straighten that out. Hate to ask for more as you have done so much already, but looking at the general page of packages (not the fpm page per-se) they are binned into "categories"., but the fpm(1) registry is not. When fpm(1) has a search capability would it be useful to have a "category" or "keyword" descriptor as well as "description"? Not only might it be useful for future searches, but might be nice for automatically categorizing the fpm registry page. Not sure if categories should be ignored if they are not part of a predefined list or not.

[LKedward]

When fpm(1) has a search capability would it be useful to have a "category" or "keyword" descriptor as well as "description"? Not only might it be useful for future searches, but might be nice for automatically categorizing the fpm registry page. Not sure if categories should be ignored if they are not part of a predefined list or not.

I completely agree with you and this is something that I've also been thinking about recently. We loosely look to Rust's package manager cargo as a good example for how to do things and they do have categories and keywords fields where the former must match predefined 'category slugs' for the particular registry.

I've opened an issue for this here: fortran-lang/fpm#165