net/foreman-proxy: update to 1.8.2

[mmoll]

Summary

This will need mm@'s approval, but I want to get clearance here first. There were no upstream code changes apart from the version bump. However, the following was also changed in the port:

• Use rubygem-rack 1.6, it works fine for me and according to upstream, foreman-proxy 1.8 is fine with rack 1.6.
• Fix dependency after rubygem-augeas renaming

Proposed commit message:

net/foreman-proxy: update to 1.8.2

- upstream code was unchanged, except the version bump
- fix dependency after renaming of rubygem-augeas
- use www/rubygem-rack16

Approved by: swills (mentor), mat (mentor), mm (maintainer)

Test Plan

Poudriere: http://space.kvedulv.de/FreeBSD/foreman-proxy-1.8.2.log
portlint:

mmoll@marduk:/svn/ports/net/foreman-proxy$ portlint -ACNc
WARN: Makefile: possible use of absolute pathname "/var/log/foreman-pro...".
WARN: Makefile: possible use of absolute pathname "/var/run/foreman-pro...".
WARN: /svn/ports/net/foreman-proxy/files/patch-bin-smart-proxy: patch was not generated using ``make makepatch''.  It is recommended to use ``make makepatch'' to ensure proper patch format.
WARN: /svn/ports/net/foreman-proxy/files/patch-config-settings.d-dhcp.yml.example: patch was not generated using ``make makepatch''.  It is recommended to use ``make makepatch'' to ensure proper patch format.
WARN: /svn/ports/net/foreman-proxy/files/patch-config-settings.d-dns.yml.example: patch was not generated using ``make makepatch''.  It is recommended to use ``make makepatch'' to ensure proper patch format.
WARN: /svn/ports/net/foreman-proxy/files/patch-config-settings.d-puppet.yml.example: patch was not generated using ``make makepatch''.  It is recommended to use ``make makepatch'' to ensure proper patch format.
WARN: /svn/ports/net/foreman-proxy/files/patch-config-settings.d-puppetca.yml.example: patch was not generated using ``make makepatch''.  It is recommended to use ``make makepatch'' to ensure proper patch format.
WARN: /svn/ports/net/foreman-proxy/files/patch-config-settings.d-realm.yml.example: patch was not generated using ``make makepatch''.  It is recommended to use ``make makepatch'' to ensure proper patch format.
WARN: /svn/ports/net/foreman-proxy/files/patch-config-settings.d-tftp.yml.example: patch was not generated using ``make makepatch''.  It is recommended to use ``make makepatch'' to ensure proper patch format.
WARN: /svn/ports/net/foreman-proxy/files/patch-config-settings.yml.example: patch was not generated using ``make makepatch''.  It is recommended to use ``make makepatch'' to ensure proper patch format.
WARN: /svn/ports/net/foreman-proxy/files/patch-extra-migrate_settings.rb: patch was not generated using ``make makepatch''.  It is recommended to use ``make makepatch'' to ensure proper patch format.
WARN: /svn/ports/net/foreman-proxy/files/patch-lib-proxy-http_downloads.rb: patch was not generated using ``make makepatch''.  It is recommended to use ``make makepatch'' to ensure proper patch format.
0 fatal errors and 12 warnings found.

[swills]

net/foreman-proxy/Makefile

16 ↗

(On Diff #6209)

Shouldn't this have 1.6 here instead of 1.4?

[mmoll]

net/foreman-proxy/Makefile

16 ↗

(On Diff #6209)

Not really, it will work with rack 1.4 also. I just want to cut down all the leftover rack 1.4 usage, where possible. The other way would be to create a rack14 port (if really needed at all) and update rack to 1.6, but I tend to update to rack16 where possible now and when all the work is done, see how the 1.4 phase-out will happen.

[swills]

net/foreman-proxy/Makefile

16 ↗

(On Diff #6209)

But the package dependency will pull in 1.6 no matter what, so to me having 1.4 here is confusing, but I guess it works fine.

[mmoll]

net/foreman-proxy/Makefile

16 ↗

(On Diff #6209)

Yes, this has to do with my plan to eliminate rack 1.4. I'm just unsure if it's better to copy rack16 to rack again and update the dependencies or not. For now, not having a dependency on rack (without 15 or 16) is the sign for me that a port works with >1.4.

[swills]

net/foreman-proxy/Makefile

16 ↗

(On Diff #6209)

Ok, but changing the 1.4 to 1.6 here won't affect that.

Generally, we want the port without the number in the name to be the latest, I think, though I'm starting to think the renaming isn't worth it for ruby gem stuff. So if it's easier to just call it rack16, that's fine.

[swills]

Approved