Re: Auto layout for disk partitions - a new user's perspective

Thanks for all of the very useful replies, I have managed to get
everything working.

For context, I need erlang 24 + elixir 13 and the current packages
are older than that. Which is why I have found myself working
with ports almost immediately (pro level yak shaving..)

I ended up carving out some space from the /home partition
for ports and setting WRKOBJDIR as recommended.

As for the /usr/src folder, I personally like to work with git
due to familiarity with the tools. I have seen got, and like the
idea of separating the repository from the worktree, so I will
look into using that.

On Mon, 18 Apr 2022, at 3:35 PM, Thomas Frohwein wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 18, 2022 at 01:36:18PM -0000, Stuart Henderson wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > > 2) Should there be a /usr/local/pobj partition created with correct mount
> > > options? (I appreciate building ports is an "advanced" thing to do - but it
> > > feels weird having to mess with partition layout after a fresh install just to
> > > build them)
> >
> > Ports doesn't use /usr/local/pobj by default (you can set it via WRKOBJDIR
> > in mk.conf, but /usr/local isn't a great place for a filesystem with rapid
> > changes during a port build). Also, /usr/local/pobj *is* normally wxallowed.
> >
> > If you are using ports I would strongly recommend a separate filesystem
> > for /usr/ports, either with default ports-related directories (i.e. don't
> > change dirs in mk.conf) and set that wxallowed, or with a separate WRKOBJDIR
> > on a wxallowed filesystem.
>
> I think it might be worth repeating that packages are the recommended
> way to use third-party software. And that's also a great justification
> why there is no /usr/ports partition on a default install.
>
> Unless you are doing ports development work, you shouldn't need the
> ports tree. There are rare ports which don't have a package (for
> license reasons). If you need one of them, CVS has the advantage over
> git that you can checkout a subdirectory. If you do this for an
> individual port, the space requirements should be minimal. Still, for
> regular use you shouldn't need to deal with any of this.
>
>