When a package is created, it is put under /usr/ports/packages/All and links are made from one or more subdirectories of /usr/ports/packages. The names of these subdirectories are specified by the variable CATEGORIES. It is intended to make life easier for the user when he is wading through the pile of packages on the FTP site or the CDROM. Please take a look at the current list of categories and pick the ones that are suitable for the port.

This list also determines where in the ports tree the port is imported. If there is more than one category here, the port files must be put in the subdirectory with the name of the first category. See below for more discussion about how to pick the right categories.

Here is the current list of port categories. Those marked with an asterisk (*) are virtual categories—those that do not have a corresponding subdirectory in the ports tree. They are only used as secondary categories, and only for search purposes.

As many of the categories overlap, choosing which of the categories will be the primary category of the port can be tedious. There are several rules that govern this issue. Here is the list of priorities, in decreasing order of precedence:

If the category is not clearly defined, please put a comment to that effect in the port submission in the bug database so we can discuss it before we import it. As a committer, send a note to the FreeBSD ports mailing list so we can discuss it first. Too often, new ports are imported to the wrong category only to be moved right away. This causes unnecessary and undesirable bloat in the master source repository.

As the Ports Collection has grown over time, various new categories have been introduced. New categories can either be virtual categories—those that do not have a corresponding subdirectory in the ports tree— or physical categories—those that do. This section discusses the issues involved in creating a new physical category. Read it thouroughly before proposing a new one.

Our existing practice has been to avoid creating a new physical category unless either a large number of ports would logically belong to it, or the ports that would belong to it are a logically distinct group that is of limited general interest (for instance, categories related to spoken human languages), or preferably both.

The rationale for this is that such a change creates a fair amount of work for both the committers and also for all users who track changes to the Ports Collection. In addition, proposed category changes just naturally seem to attract controversy. (Perhaps this is because there is no clear consensus on when a category is “too big”, nor whether categories should lend themselves to browsing (and thus what number of categories would be an ideal number), and so forth.)

步驟如下：

Proposing a new virtual category is similar to the above but much less involved, since no ports will actually have to move. In this case, the only patches to include in the PR would be those to add the new category to CATEGORIES of the affected ports.

Occasionally someone proposes reorganizing the categories with either a 2-level structure, or some other kind of keyword structure. To date, nothing has come of any of these proposals because, while they are very easy to make, the effort involved to retrofit the entire existing ports collection with any kind of reorganization is daunting to say the very least. Please read the history of these proposals in the mailing list archives before posting this idea. Furthermore, be prepared to be challenged to offer a working prototype.