Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2004 13:48:42 -0800 (PST) From: Doug Barton <DougB@FreeBSD.org> To: Lars =?iso-8859-1?Q?K=F6ller?= <Lars@koellers.net> Cc: "lkoeller@freebsd.org" <lkoeller@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Please reserve UID/GID for bacula port Message-ID: <20040107133553.O59570@qbhto.arg> In-Reply-To: <200401070846.i078kppZ001556@odie.koellers.net> References: <200401070846.i078kppZ001556@odie.koellers.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, 7 Jan 2004, Lars Köller wrote: > Sorry, but I can't give you a number. But I think there is no > "large percentage of our userbase" using it. Even some active FreeBSD > user are on the bacula mailing list. Ok, then I like the idea of the port itself adding some lines to /etc/services to accomodate this. As for the argument that they would get deleted by (improper decisions made while using) mergemaster, it would be up to the port author to make it clear ... something like: # These three lines are added by ports/sysutils/bacula bacula-1 9999/tcp # Added by ports/sysutils/bacula ... # End of lines added by ports/sysutils/bacula That way the user has a fighting chance of making the right mergemaster decision, and the port has an easy way to delete those lines when its uninstalled. There is precedent for ports writing stuff in /etc (/etc/shells for one),, and since this is a case that's worth pursuing (as is saned), I think it's definitely worth the "cost" of "polluting" the base with ports stuff. HTH, Doug -- This .signature sanitized for your protection
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040107133553.O59570>