From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Aug 1 22:04:17 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 6CDE61065676 for ; Mon, 1 Aug 2011 22:04:17 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from ohauer@gmx.de) Received: from mailout-de.gmx.net (mailout-de.gmx.net [213.165.64.23]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP id D28438FC1C for ; Mon, 1 Aug 2011 22:04:16 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 01 Aug 2011 22:04:14 -0000 Received: from p578be941.dip0.t-ipconnect.de (EHLO [192.168.0.100]) [87.139.233.65] by mail.gmx.net (mp011) with SMTP; 02 Aug 2011 00:04:14 +0200 X-Authenticated: #1956535 X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX18AuN981dYAePvrYIY/tTZpYMj4jyy9RzbmNXodgd FC7OPx28F+npcI Message-ID: <4E3722DE.6050206@gmx.de> Date: Tue, 02 Aug 2011 00:04:14 +0200 From: olli hauer User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:5.0) Gecko/20110624 Thunderbird/5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ohauer@FreeBSD.org References: <4E368625.7010805@quip.cz> <4E370ADA.9060902@FreeBSD.org> <4E371284.5010806@quip.cz> <4E371B3B.7070806@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <4E371B3B.7070806@FreeBSD.org> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-2 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0 Cc: ports@FreeBSD.org, Miroslav Lachman <000.fbsd@quip.cz>, sahil@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: 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: Mon, 01 Aug 2011 22:04:17 -0000 On 2011-08-01 23:31, Olli Hauer wrote: > On 2011-08-01 22:54, Miroslav Lachman wrote: >> Olli Hauer wrote: >>> On 2011-08-01 12:55, Miroslav Lachman wrote: >>>> Hi, >>>> I upgraded postfix-2.8.3,1 to postfix-2.8.4,1 yesterday and today I >>>> realized, that postfix is nolonger in my manualy defined group >>>> (maildirs:*:3125:postfix). I use this setting for many years without >>>> problem. >>>> >>>> After the change to "use the ports framework to create USERS and >>>> GROUPS" it means broken installation after upgrade. >>>> >>>> 1] I don't think it is good to touch user's customizations in users >>>> or groups especially removing something silently >>>> >>>> 2] If something like this change happend, it should be mentioned in >>>> UPDATING >>>> >>>> Am I forced to do manual work (adding postfix to my group) after >>>> each upgrade? >>>> >>>> Miroslav Lachman >>> >>> >>> Hi Miroslav, >>> >>> what do you mean with "postfix is nolonger in my manualy defined group"? >> >> I have postfix in group maildirs on my servers: >> >> maildirs:*:3125:postfix >> >> This is my group created many years ago (the server start its life as FreeBSD 6.0, now it runs 8.2). I am using this group for mail directories on all of my mailservers. >> >>> In the postfix port there was no code to remove the postfix user from >>> any group or delete the postfix user. >>> If my speculation is correct and this was not a fresh install, then the >>> postfix user is now member of the groups *mail, postfix and maildirs*. >> >> Today (after Postfix upgrade) I have this in daily report: >> >> Backup passwd and group files: >> elsa.codelab.cz group diffs: >> 34c34 >> < maildirs:*:3125:postfix >> --- >>>> maildirs:*:3125: >> >> So I looked in to /etc/group and found that postfix is no longer member of the group maildirs: >> >> maildirs:*:3125: >> >> I must re-add it to group maildirs, so now I have it right: >> >>> id postfix >> uid=125(postfix) gid=125(postfix) groups=125(postfix),6(mail),3125(maildirs) >> >> Miroslav Lachman > > Oh, indeed. You hit a limitation of /usr/sbin/pw. > > The groups are applied with "pw usermod -G $grouplist" > > from pw(8): >> -G grouplist Set additional group memberships for an account. grouplist >> is a comma, space or tab-separated list of group names or >> group numbers. The user's name is added to the group lists >> in /etc/group, *and removed from any groups not specified in >> grouplist*. > > > I can think about a workaround for your case. Give me some time will do some tests. > No, you don't hit the limitation. It seems you really found a bug in the Framework! >From the Framework code in bsd.port.mk existing groups should honored. I will look into this. Thanks for your report. olli