ports/83077: Update port: mail/avenger to version 0.6.5

[David Mazieres]

Pav Lucistnik <pav at FreeBSD.org> writes:

> From: Pav Lucistnik <pav at FreeBSD.org>
> Subject: Re: ports/83077: Update port: mail/avenger to version 0.6.5
>
> Please resubmit the update as an unified diff between old and new port
> directory (diff -ruN old/ new/)

As requested, I'm attaching the patch.

> Also please don't remove hardcoding of UID/GID from pkg-install script.
> It's FreeBSD Ports policy to hardcode UIDs for system users.

I'm slightly confused here.  On the FreeBSD web page, it says:

        http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/porters-handbook/dads-uid-and-gids.html

        If your port requires a certain user to be on the installed
        system, let the pkg-install script call pw to create it
        automatically. Look at net/cvsup-mirror for an example.

        If your port must use the same user/group ID number when it is
        installed as a binary package as when it was compiled, then
        you must choose a free UID from 50 to 999 and register it
        below. Look at japanese/Wnn6 for an example.

This port does not require the same user/group when it is installed as
when it was compiled.  So I looked at net/cvsup-mirror, and it
allocates the uid dynamically.  From this I concluded that I had
messed up in the first port I submitted.

Should I not do what net/cvsup-mirror does?  If so, what UID should I
use.  Last time I used 172, but I now see it has been taken for the
akg user by the AquaGateKeeper port, so I should pick a different
number.  Maybe 175?

Thanks,
David

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: patch
Type: text/x-patch
Size: 3370 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-ports-bugs/attachments/20050707/dd4d6cd0/attachment.bin>