switching from ports to pkg -- mailman group mismatch

[Darren Pilgrim]

On 12/4/2014 8:42 AM, David Benfell wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 04, 2014 at 07:57:31AM -0800, Darren Pilgrim wrote:
>> On 12/3/2014 8:58 PM, David Benfell wrote:
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> I'm having to give up on ports. Way too many are broken.
>>>
>>> So now I'm trying to fix mailman and it's stupid group mismatch error.
>>>
>>> Nothing I'm finding on the web is offering a fix that actually works.
>>> How do I fix it?
>>
>> Did you look at the Mailman FAQ? http://goo.gl/MlPNkO
>>
>> The pkg is compiled with the default values shown in the port's Makefile.
>
> I found a problem when, in desperation, I recompiled the port.
>
> There, it says that the pkg assumes sendmail: I use postfix.

That likely means mailman assumes there's a sendmail program it can use 
for mail injection.  Does it "just work" if you tell postfix to activate 
itself in mailer.conf?

> Second, I now find myself in a situation where some software must be
> installed with pkg and some must be installed from ports. If it's just
> mailman, that's one thing. If it becomes a bunch of packages, I have a
> real mess on my hands.

It's fine to mix them.  I have a handful of ports on everyt system I 
have to compile myself--mostly because I want them linked to the ports 
OpenSSL, but there are some that need non-default values.  I just keep 
them locked so a pkg-upgrade doesn't touch them.

If you end up with a lot of compiled ports, set up poudrerie.

> I've seen the advice about sticking with default choices in
> configuring port installations. If you can have any choices you like
> as long as they're the defaults, then what, really, is the point of
> having ports?

Where did you see this advice?  About all that happens is pkg will 
report "options changed" and want to reinstall it from the package. 
Pkg-lock is your friend.