Date: Sat, 12 May 2001 16:24:44 -0700 (PDT) From: John Polstra <jdp@polstra.com> To: "David W. Chapman Jr." <dwcjr@inethouston.net> Cc: ade@FreeBSD.ORG, ports@FreeBSD.ORG, sobomax@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: FreeBSD Port: samba-2.2.0_1 Message-ID: <XFMail.010512162444.jdp@polstra.com> In-Reply-To: <019c01c0db36$f962e9e0$931576d8@inethouston.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
David W. Chapman Jr. wrote: > 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, XFree86 changes its version number very rarely. Even the first version of the XFree86 port was for version 3.1, and that was in January of 1995. If you want more reasons than that, ask the person who chose the name. > so why can't we have samba20 and samba22? I'm not saying you "can't" have those names. I'm suggesting that you consider using names which will reduce the number of repo copies. That would be a win for the over-extended repository managers as well as for yourselves. Making new directories every time a new version comes along is silly, given the fact that older ports are always available via CVS. 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?XFMail.010512162444.jdp>