How to handle packages that do not have fpm.toml

[certik]

There will be a lot of packages that do not have fpm.toml. Here is my suggested approach how to handle that:

1. Encourage every package to use fpm.toml and to use fpm.

2. Those packages that do not use it yet could be handled as follows: we will maintain a version (fork) at GitHub or GitLab that includes the fpm.toml. It will be this fork that would be used with fpm. From fpm's perspective, each package always contains fpm.toml.

3. The alternative to (or modification of) 2. is to allow fpm.toml to specify where to find sources of the actual package. So our GitLab package can be just one file fpm.toml that would list the metadata and where to download the sources plus any patches to them.

In particular, here is my plan: I will start with forking the packages listed at #17 and implementing fpm.toml together with any modifications that might be needed. I will not submit a PR back initially, but rather simply get my forks working well with fpm, and test it all out and get some usage. Then, as things start to get more serious and the fpm tool matures, we can easily send a PR against the upstream package and start the discussion with upstream authors if they would be willing to use fpm and maintain fpm.toml themselves. And depending on how this conversation goes, we'll either do just 2., or if we need to, we can also implement 3. in fpm. I expect that upstream authors will give us a list of features that they need fpm to have implemented, and once we do, they would be willing to use it.