security/ssh-import-id: new port

[fuz]

Summary

security/ssh-import-id: new port

You're logged onto a cloud instance working on a problem with your
fellow devs, and you want to invite them to log in and take a look
at these crazy log messages. What to do?

Oh. You have to ask them to cat their public SSH key, paste it into
IRC (wait, no, it's id_rsa.pub, not id_rsa silly!) then you copy it
and cat it to the end of authorized_hosts.

That's where ssh-import-id comes in. With ssh-import-id, you can add
the public SSH keys from a known, trusted online identity to grant
SSH access.

Currently supported identities include Github and Launchpad.

WWW: https://git.launchpad.net/ssh-import-id

Submitter is first time maintainer.

PR:		265835
Approved by:	... (mentor)

Test Plan

Tested with Poudriere on i386 amd64 FreeBSD 12.4 13.1.
Arm64 test results pending. For logs see
http://fuz.su/~fuz/freebsd/batch3

[flo]

Looks good. Approved

security/ssh-import-id/Makefile

19

-USE_PYTHON= concurrent autoplist distutils
+USE_PYTHON= autoplist concurrent distutils

I don't know if you know the tool. Additionally to portlint I usually run the Makefile through portfmt. It detects stuff like this minor nit.

[flo]

"Submitter is first time maintainer." I've never seen this mentioned. I don't think it's necessary to mention this, but it doesn't hurt of course. Personally I would leave it out.

[diizzy]

security/ssh-import-id/Makefile

5

PYPI
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=267994

[fuz]

If you approve, please set the appropriate flag. I've seen various other maintainers write something to the effect of “first time maintainer” or “already maintainer of other ports” when committing new ports by third party contributors.

[fuz]

I do not usually portfmt third party patches as the formatting done by it is not mandated by policy (and neither is alphabetically sorting fields), and personally it infuriates me when others do such changes without asking. Some times there's reason to the order of things and there is no point to change it if it's not wrong.

[fuz]

Need the “approved” flag set here, too.

[flo]

In D38681#880651, @fuz wrote:

If you approve, please set the appropriate flag. I've seen various other maintainers write something to the effect of “first time maintainer” or “already maintainer of other ports” when committing new ports by third party contributors.

Yeah, forgot the tag. Ok, apparently I never noticed.

In D38681#880652, @fuz wrote:

I do not usually portfmt third party patches as the formatting done by it is not mandated by policy (and neither is alphabetically sorting fields), and personally it infuriates me when others do such changes without asking. Some times there's reason to the order of things and there is no point to change it if it's not wrong.

Ok