Date: Sat, 12 May 2001 16:30:06 -0700 (PDT) From: John Polstra <jdp@polstra.com> To: Ade Lovett <ade@FreeBSD.org> Cc: cvs@FreeBSD.org, dwcjr@inethouston.net, ports@FreeBSD.org, sobomax@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: FreeBSD Port: samba-2.2.0_1 Message-ID: <XFMail.010512163006.jdp@polstra.com> In-Reply-To: <20010512182216.A90400@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Ade Lovett wrote: > 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. Those cases aren't comparable to samba at all. All of the ports you cited (except maybe glib) have the properties that (a) other ports need certain specific versions of them, and (b) multiple versions can be installed at the same time without causing problems. Samba doesn't have those properties. 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.010512163006.jdp>