From owner-freebsd-ports  Sat May 12 15:48:12 2001
Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org
Received: from wall.polstra.com (rtrwan160.accessone.com [206.213.115.74])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 40B2237B424; Sat, 12 May 2001 15:48:09 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from jdp@polstra.com)
Received: from vashon.polstra.com (vashon.polstra.com [206.213.73.13])
	by wall.polstra.com (8.11.3/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f4CMm8083010;
	Sat, 12 May 2001 15:48:08 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from jdp@polstra.com)
Message-ID: <XFMail.010512154807.jdp@polstra.com>
X-Mailer: XFMail 1.3 [p0] on FreeBSD
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <200105110520.IAA31408@ipcard.iptcom.net>
Date: Sat, 12 May 2001 15:48:07 -0700 (PDT)
Organization: Polstra & Co., Inc.
From: John Polstra <jdp@polstra.com>
To: sobomax@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject: Re: FreeBSD Port: samba-2.2.0_1
Cc: ports@FreeBSD.ORG, dwcjr@inethouston.net, cvs@FreeBSD.ORG,
	ade@FreeBSD.ORG
Sender: owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org

Maxim Sobolev wrote:
> 
> Please do the following repo-copies:
> ports/net/samba --> ports/net/samba20
> ports/net/samba-devel --> ports/net/samba22

This naming scheme doesn't seem like it's going to scale very well.
Why does the version number have to be contained in the name of the
directory?  Doing it that way will require a repo copy every time a
new version comes out.  If 2.2 is the production version, then why
not upgrade "ports/net/samba" to that version?

John

To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message