Please reserve UID/GID for bacula port

[Doug Silver]

On Wednesday 07 January 2004 01:59 pm, Brooks Davis wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 01:48:42PM -0800, Doug Barton wrote:
> > 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.
>
> At the very least it would be good to not add lines for services which
> already exist so the user doesn't end up with a new copy of the lines
> every time they do a portupgrade.  That way you avoid situations like
> the way the perl ports spam make.conf with 11 lines of crap every time
> perl gets upgraded on a 5.x system.
>
> -- Brooks

FWIW -

The www/urchin5 port by default also uses port 9999.  This is not something 
that we desire to be reserved solely for our use since this can be changed at 
any time.  Just thought I should point it out as the port was just recently 
added but we certainly don't have any desire to reserve 9999 as specific to 
Urchin.

-Doug Silver