Date: Sat, 12 May 2001 17:57:52 -0500 From: "David W. Chapman Jr." <dwcjr@inethouston.net> To: "John Polstra" <jdp@polstra.com>, <sobomax@FreeBSD.ORG> Cc: <ports@FreeBSD.ORG>, <cvs@FreeBSD.ORG>, <ade@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: Re: FreeBSD Port: samba-2.2.0_1 Message-ID: <019c01c0db36$f962e9e0$931576d8@inethouston.net> References: <XFMail.010512154807.jdp@polstra.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Because some people are still weary of 2.2.0 due to the massive changes in it while 2.0.9 has been around a while. It doesn't matter to me how it happens, but we should atleast keep around 2.0.9 for a while and 2.2.0 isn't alpha anymore so it should not be samba-devel. We have Xfree86-4 and XFree86, so why can't we have samba20 and samba22? > This naming scheme doesn't seem like it's going to scale very well. > Why does the version number have to be contained in the name of the > directory? Doing it that way will require a repo copy every time a > new version comes out. If 2.2 is the production version, then why > not upgrade "ports/net/samba" to that version? > > John > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?019c01c0db36$f962e9e0$931576d8>