On Wed, 1 Sep 1999, Nick Hibma wrote:
>
>
> > > Why not do this as part of the port itself, ala majordomo? That
> > > works just fine and is completely non-controversial because you don't get
> > > it unless you ask for it.
> >
> > I would just liek to point out that Postfix is also doing the exact same
> > thing ... user postfix ... (as well as a group maildrop)
>
> Maybe a stupid question, but how do you figure out which uid is still
> available, if you don't want every port to include a UID scanning
> utility?
It's not a stupid question at all. There is already such a utility
in the majordomo port, perhaps make this its own port and add that as a
dependency? We've already been told that postfix (one of the favorite
replacement MTA's for our crowd) uses a different name and group, so this
proposed change won't help it at all.
My point is simply that fixing this problem is the responsibility
of the port maintainers. There is no point in adding something to the base
system that will only benefit a few people when a mechanism to solve the
problem which does not affect people who don't want the port(s) is already
available.
Doug
--
"My mama told me, my mama said, 'don't cry.' She said, 'you're too young a man
to have as many women you got.' I looked at my mother dear and didn't even
crack a smile. I said, 'If women kill me, I don't mind dyin!'"
- John Belushi as "Joliet" Jake Blues, "I Don't Know"
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
