From owner-freebsd-ports  Sat May 12 16:41:40 2001
Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org
Received: from wall.polstra.com (rtrwan160.accessone.com [206.213.115.74])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 48D6E37B423; Sat, 12 May 2001 16:41:38 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from jdp@polstra.com)
Received: from vashon.polstra.com (vashon.polstra.com [206.213.73.13])
	by wall.polstra.com (8.11.3/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f4CNfa083248;
	Sat, 12 May 2001 16:41:36 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from jdp@polstra.com)
Message-ID: <XFMail.010512164135.jdp@polstra.com>
X-Mailer: XFMail 1.3 [p0] on FreeBSD
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <01b601c0db3c$5b02ba40$931576d8@inethouston.net>
Date: Sat, 12 May 2001 16:41:35 -0700 (PDT)
Organization: Polstra & Co., Inc.
From: John Polstra <jdp@polstra.com>
To: "David W. Chapman Jr." <dwcjr@inethouston.net>
Subject: Re: FreeBSD Port: samba-2.2.0_1
Cc: sobomax@FreeBSD.org, ports@FreeBSD.org,
	Ade Lovett <ade@FreeBSD.org>
Sender: owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org

David W. Chapman Jr. wrote:

> So how do we have both ports exist without confusing people by
> keeping samba 2.2.0 as samba devel, because I've gotten a few emails
> about people wondering about its stability.

I don't think there is a way to get rid of questions like that when
you have ports for two different versions.  If you renamed them to
"samba-stable" and "samba" then people would still ask whether samba
was "stable enough."  If you renamed them to "samba-a" and "samba-b",
folks would want to know what the difference was.  Certain people in
the world just ask questions like that, and there's nothing that can
be done about it. :-)

John

To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message