ports/75491: mail/dspam: fix deinstall; fix comment; bug-fixes; update

[Mark Linimon]

On Sun, 26 Dec 2004, Norikatsu Shigemura wrote:

> According to ports handbook(*), I consider that PORTREVISION
> should be reset to 0 rather than removing PORTREVISION.  But
> PORTREVISION=0 is same as no PORTREVISION.  And to be sure,
> it is not necessarily clearly shown by ports handbook.
> 
> (*) http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/porters-handbook/makefile-naming.html#MAKEFILE-NAMING-REVEPOCH

There are issues involved here with masterports and slave ports
interacting badly in certain cases of changes to PORTVERSION,
PORTREVISION, and PORTEPOCH, but I am feeling a little bit sleepy
right now and I don't think I can explain it well.

The PH is completely lacking in this detail.  I will try to see if I
can look up my email on the issue the last time that it came up.  I
think eik@ is the person who best understands the issue, IIRC.

I also recall concluding that there was a lot of bad practice in our
tree because of this confusion.

mcl