From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Sep 8 17:20:24 2011 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ports@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 485BF106566B; Thu, 8 Sep 2011 17:20:24 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from sahil@tandon.net) Received: from spartan.hamla.org (spartan.hamla.org [206.251.255.30]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DCB5A8FC22; Thu, 8 Sep 2011 17:20:23 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by spartan.hamla.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 12F041711F; Thu, 8 Sep 2011 13:20:53 -0400 (EDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=tandon.net; h= date:date:subject:subject:from:from:x-mailer:message-id :content-type:content-type:content-transfer-encoding :mime-version:in-reply-to:references:received:received; s=aegis; t=1315502452; bh=djwhFUpbb5gM9cy/Du4f6j/QDlfez16ON+PlvaDnqhE=; b= D51pGuSsfxqMxPdU+q1Pvm4W1ouJRXT9c1Xw5VeKYYFLYTXB0oTsr0XUSBkiBjoN TsZWKZLWfttpQys+FLst4txJMv7D8R8cIXkk1omf2mLz13+FIti74Yz5gqrs3lZy 39z6OKsB2t7JKCppIYgUX2TGbmCJJIpybDW0V+NxcHA= X-Virus-Scanned: by ClamAV at spartan.hamla.org Received: from spartan.hamla.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (spartan.hamla.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10027) with LMTP id nrvobS7R2Rw3; Thu, 8 Sep 2011 13:20:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [10.83.78.164] (mobile-166-137-136-145.mycingular.net [166.137.136.145]) by spartan.hamla.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id EBA76170E6; Thu, 8 Sep 2011 13:20:42 -0400 (EDT) References: <4E368625.7010805@quip.cz> <4E370ADA.9060902@FreeBSD.org> <4E371284.5010806@quip.cz> <4E371B3B.7070806@FreeBSD.org> <4E3722DE.6050206@gmx.de> <20110802010139.GA981@magic.hamla.org> <4E37F71D.7070502@quip.cz> <4E68A89B.6040701@quip.cz> In-Reply-To: <4E68A89B.6040701@quip.cz> Mime-Version: 1.0 (iPhone Mail 8L1) Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Message-Id: <239A3DFB-E98E-4481-A74E-3B0C6891935C@tandon.net> X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (8L1) From: Sahil Tandon Date: Thu, 8 Sep 2011 13:19:26 -0400 To: Miroslav Lachman <000.fbsd@quip.cz> Cc: "ports@FreeBSD.org" , "ohauer@FreeBSD.org" , bapt@FreeBSD.org, Sahil Tandon Subject: Re: USERS/GROUPS in bsd.port.mk [was: FreeBSD Port: postfix-2.8.4, 1] X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 08 Sep 2011 17:20:24 -0000 On Sep 8, 2011, at 7:35 AM, Miroslav Lachman <000.fbsd@quip.cz> wrote: > Miroslav Lachman wrote: >> Sahil Tandon wrote: >>> On Tue, 2011-08-02 at 00:04:14 +0200, olli hauer wrote: >>>=20 >>>> No, you don't hit the limitation. It seems you really found a bug in >>>> the Framework! >>>>=20 >>>> =46rom the Framework code in bsd.port.mk existing groups should honored= . >>>=20 >>> Along those lines, what about using groupmod instead of usermod? >>> Perhaps due to my ignorance, it seems more straightforward and does not >>> require much sed-fu; I've attached a (probably incomplete) patch to >>> illustrate my thinking. I understand what I am suggesting could >>> introduce other problems, so please do not construe it as an as-is >>> suggestion, but rather something to stoke discussion. >>=20 >> I tested your patch and it works for me. >>=20 >> # pkg_version -vIL =3D | grep postfix >> postfix-2.7.2,1 < needs updating (index has 2.8.4,1) >>=20 >> # id postfix >> uid=3D125(postfix) gid=3D125(postfix) >> groups=3D125(postfix),6(mail),3125(maildirs) >>=20 >> # patch < ~/bsd.port.mk.diff >>=20 >> # portmaster postfix-2.7.2,1 >>=20 >> =3D=3D=3D>>> The following actions were performed: >> Upgrade of mysql-client-5.1.53 to mysql-client-5.1.58 >> Upgrade of libtool-2.2.10 to libtool-2.4 >> Upgrade of cyrus-sasl-2.1.23_1 to cyrus-sasl-2.1.23_3 >> Upgrade of postfix-2.7.2,1 to postfix-2.8.4,1 >>=20 >> # id postfix >> uid=3D125(postfix) gid=3D125(postfix) >> groups=3D125(postfix),6(mail),3125(maildirs) >>=20 >> It was tested on really old testing system... >>=20 >> Thank you for your time and working solution. >=20 > Will the fix be committed to the ports tree? I upgraded Postfix on another= machines yesterday and get the same error as reported month ago - upgrade r= emoved postfix from manualy created group. >=20 > Should I send PR for this? I am very sorry to hear that. I already filed a PR after you sent your repo= rt to this mailing list, and followed up with portmgr@ earlier this week. I= believe they are doing an -exp run before committing the change. I will pi= ng them again if there is no progress in the next few days. Sorry again for= the inconvenience.=