From owner-freebsd-ports  Sat May 12 15:57:53 2001
Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org
Received: from leviathan.inethouston.net (216-118-21-146.pdq.net [216.118.21.146])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id E4D4437B424; Sat, 12 May 2001 15:57:48 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from dwcjr@inethouston.net)
Received: from dwcjr (DWCJR.inethouston.net [216.118.21.147])
	by leviathan.inethouston.net (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 3869510F40F; Sat, 12 May 2001 17:57:57 -0500 (CDT)
Message-ID: <019c01c0db36$f962e9e0$931576d8@inethouston.net>
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>
References: <XFMail.010512154807.jdp@polstra.com>
Subject: Re: FreeBSD Port: samba-2.2.0_1
Date: Sat, 12 May 2001 17:57:52 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200
Sender: owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org

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