From owner-freebsd-ports Sat May 12 16:22:44 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from hub.lovett.com (hub.lovett.com [216.60.121.161]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CD71837B423; Sat, 12 May 2001 16:22:41 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from ade@lovett.com) Received: from ade by hub.lovett.com with local (Exim 3.22 #1) id 14yiiG-000NfL-00; Sat, 12 May 2001 18:22:16 -0500 Date: Sat, 12 May 2001 18:22:16 -0500 From: Ade Lovett To: John Polstra Cc: sobomax@FreeBSD.ORG, ports@FreeBSD.ORG, dwcjr@inethouston.net, cvs@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: FreeBSD Port: samba-2.2.0_1 Message-ID: <20010512182216.A90400@FreeBSD.org> References: <200105110520.IAA31408@ipcard.iptcom.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: ; from jdp@polstra.com on Sat, May 12, 2001 at 03:48:07PM -0700 Sender: owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Sat, May 12, 2001 at 03:48:07PM -0700, John Polstra wrote: > 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? I refer the honorable gentleman to tcl80,82,83, tk80,82,83 glib12,13 gtk12,13 etc.. etc.. there is plenty of precedent for including version numbers in the port name. Regards, -aDe -- Ade Lovett, Austin, TX. ade@FreeBSD.org FreeBSD: The Power to Serve http://www.FreeBSD.org/ To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message