Handbook 4.2 - ports overview

[Oliver Eikemeier]

Leonard Zettel wrote:

> On Wednesday 18 August 2004 08:08 am, Oliver Eikemeier wrote:
>> Leonard Zettel wrote:
>>> Well, this struggling newbie, using vanilla stuff lying around,
>>> has managed to get at least three examples of what he would
>>> call ports trees on his system.  One is for executables, and
>>> two are connected with documentation. This led me to say
>>> "a".
>>
>> Hmmm... sorry, I don't get it. How do they differ?
>>
> First, I apologize for not saying earlier "thank you for your Interest"
> (and patience with an ignorant newbie).

Don't try to belittle your work, contributors are always welcome!

> On my system at the moment
> /usr/ports contains make files used to build executables.
> /usr/doc contains make files that build documentation.
> /usr/www contains make files that build documentation related to
> the FreeBSD web site.
>
> I guess it boils down to whether "ports tree" means "something
> that builds system executables" or "something that contains make
> files". If the former, then is /usr/doc a doc tree?  Is there
> a community consensus on these terms?

Yup. These are the ports tree and the doc tree. Then there is the source 
tree (/usr/src, used to build `the base' (you know "all your base are 
belong to us")). I'm not aware of a special name for /usr/www, I never 
heard the term `the www tree', but I'm sure people will understand you 
when you use it nevertheless.
Of course you can have multiple versions of one tree on your machine 
(like a -CURRENT and -STABLE src tree), but I guess people doing this 
know how to deal with ports.

Generally you have only one ports tree (at /usr/ports) and try to keep 
it current via CVSup. There are multiple ways to follow the current 
status, like for example FreshPorts (<http://www.FreshPorts.org/>).

-Oliver