FontAwesome is known primarily as a web font framework. Your pkg-descr should probably make it clear that it just installs the ttf/otf fonts and none of the files for web support.

In D13054#271494, @adamw wrote:

FontAwesome is known primarily as a web font framework. Your pkg-descr should probably make it clear that it just installs the ttf/otf fonts and none of the files for web support.

I saw this. Grepping through the ports tree, I found the file fontawesome-webfont.woff is installed by 87 different ports (!).
I will create a patch clarifying this.

@tcberner @adamw

I would like to add this text to pkg-descr, as the last paragraph before WWW:

This package installs only ttf/otf fonts suitable for use in X.Org applications. The corresponding web fonts (woff/woff2)
aren't installed.  You can find them installed by a lot of other ports.

I have the maintainer approval.

In D13054#271566, @yuri wrote:
@tcberner @adamw

I would like to add this text to pkg-descr, as the last paragraph before WWW:
This package installs only ttf/otf fonts suitable for use in X.Org applications. The corresponding web fonts (woff/woff2)
aren't installed.  You can find them installed by a lot of other ports.
I have the maintainer approval.

Sure. Make sure, you have a line break somewhere, as that line seems to be rather long :)

[I cannot re-approve it]

In D13054#271567, @tcberner wrote:

Sure. Make sure, you have a line break somewhere, as that line seems to be rather long :)

[I cannot re-approve it]

Sure! Will add newlines, of course. :)

Thanks!

@tcberner

Should PORTREVISION be bumped when only pkg-descr changes?
Technically, pkg-descr is a package metadata change. It is viewable with pkg.

In D13054#271589, @yuri wrote:

@tcberner

Should PORTREVISION be bumped when only pkg-descr changes?
Technically, pkg-descr is a package metadata change. It is viewable with pkg.

My gut says, you can get away without it

Trivial patches to the distfile such as correction of typos, which are not important enough that users of the package have to go to the trouble of upgrading.

It does not perfectly fit there, but I would consider it to in the same spirit.

To quote the porters handbook again

A rule of thumb is to decide whether a change committed to a port is something which some people would benefit from having. Either because of an enhancement, fix, or by virtue that the new package will actually work at all. Then weigh that against that fact that it will cause everyone who regularly updates their ports tree to be compelled to update. If yes, PORTREVISION must be bumped.

However, to be on the save side, there is nothing wrong with doing a bump.