Browsing the fpm website led me to the so-linked official registry, which I cannot for the life of me get to work. Is it broken ? Should I instead be using the fpm site at https://perazz.github.io/fpm-docs/registry/index.html to browse the registry on the web ?
The fpm github page points me to the former fpm website, which contains the seemingly nonfunctional registry. Maybe I’m just a bit confused (:
Very happy with fpm so far.
The registry is not in full production yet. The latest release is discussed at
https://fortran-lang.discourse.group/t/fpm-version-0-10-1-released-centralized-registry-playground
Good to know — thanks !
The Téléversement d’un paquet — Fortran Package Manager page sends to fpm - registry page to register to the registry. It doesn’t work at all.
Instead, I’ve found I don’t remember where that at the moment one should use instead: fpm - registry. I can apparently register there, but it tells me to check my emails (a validation email is sent I guess), but I didn’t receive nothing…
Is it possible to register to a registry at the moment, or not?
Yes, the new registry URL is https://registry-phi.vercel.app/. The old one is defunct. The URL listed in https://fpm.fortran-lang.org/fr/registry/publish.html is therefore outdated.
See this thread:
I had created an account a few months ago and I can login today.
I have constantly the message “Please verify your email” when I try to log in or to register, but no email is incoming (I have checked the spam folder, etc…)
Edit: which domain is the sender of the mail? I can try putting it in a white list in the configuration of the mailbox.
It could be a too strong filter on the server receiving your emails. Recently I had such a problem for reactivating a Twitter account: I was receiving the activation code but one hour later (and it was of course outdated), because the sender was on the grey list of the server…
Hi @PierU,
The official registry URL for the latest release is : https://registry-phi.vercel.app/ . I have updated the docs to reflect the new registry url.
I had used my institutional email id: 21bce085@nirmauni.ac.in as it does not have 2FA and doesn’t have any ratelimits.
I have verified your email, you can use the registry. Please feel free to provide feedback on the registry.
Thanks!
How can we fill the README tab of an uploaded package? I thought it would maybe use the README file from the fpm project, but it doesn’t. Then I added a “description=” field in the fmp.toml file, but nothing is showing up at end…
the description of a package can be filled by description in fpm.toml or by README.md file (with priority to the README.md), new packages are run through a set of checks (run daily) which check consistency and also extracts the information from fpm.toml to be added to the page. I have started the checks , the data will be filled soon.
Following are just some general thoughts on documentation questions for fpm packages in general, but specifically for the registry; which is escalating the need for some consensus on how fpm packages need to be documented, at least at the level of an abstract.
The main question is what are the rules required by the README.md file on the registry; and since a lot of packages already contain a README file or equavalent should another name be used first that is specifically for the registry, or should the package checkin let you indicate a filename to display directly from the registry?
So far Fortran and fpm have not specified a documentation format or
tools to view it. Usually a README.md and a doc/ or docs/ directory
exists in fpm(1) packages; but the form and contents are dictated more
by what is supported by the home site of the package (github, gitlab,
…) if it has one.
Some of the most common tools for automatically generating documentation
for Fortran fpm(1) packages have been tending towards ford(1) and doxygen(1)
package output.
So what the registry will support as documentation is unclear to me.
If the README.md file will be displayed, which Markdown flavor wil
be supported? It is assumed to be a single self-contained file or will
graphics and URL links be supported?
Once a package is released on the registry by design it is nearly
immutable. So having some ability to preview a file is important to
ensure it is presentable before committing a package to the registry.
If a particular format is required, a list of resources for converting
to it such as pandoc(1) would be useful.
It would be great to support sophisticated documentation but outside of
pixel maps it is very hard to define a long-term format without issues.
LaTex, Adobe PDF, HTML5 + CSS, … everything has pros and cons.
A quick glance at other repositories and languages does not produce an
obvious answer.
Does anyone have suggestions and/or experience with on-line repostitory
documenation and local mirrored or cached documenation?
Does anyone have a Fortran-based md viewer?
Fortran is way overdue in supporting extractable free-format blocks of
comments and character array definitions as well; which would greatly
simplify maintaining basic documentation with the code itself, as most
languages do.
I particularly like the flavor of MD that github and most others use. I don’t know what this is called though, unfortunately. Although I’m still new to this whole programming thing, I think graphics and URL support, etc. will be better because a broader range of people. I believe you should keep an option for the CLI as well. Also as a suggestion you should make it that the user can run an “install” command like “fpm install {package name here}” and that would add the dependency line to the toml as well.