Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Sat, 12 May 2001 18:48:50 -0500
From:      Ade Lovett <ade@FreeBSD.org>
To:        John Polstra <jdp@polstra.com>
Cc:        cvs@FreeBSD.org, dwcjr@inethouston.net, ports@FreeBSD.org, sobomax@FreeBSD.org
Subject:   Re: FreeBSD Port: samba-2.2.0_1
Message-ID:  <20010512184850.B90400@FreeBSD.org>
In-Reply-To: <XFMail.010512163006.jdp@polstra.com>; from jdp@polstra.com on Sat, May 12, 2001 at 04:30:06PM -0700
References:  <20010512182216.A90400@FreeBSD.org> <XFMail.010512163006.jdp@polstra.com>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, May 12, 2001 at 04:30:06PM -0700, John Polstra wrote:
> Ade Lovett wrote:
> > 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.

And with the ever-improving PDC/BDC capabilities of samba 2.2, it is
entirely likely that we'll see other plugins that bring more involved GUI
maintenance (for example), depending on a particular version.

The fact that the two ports can't coexist is irrelevant.  Neither
can XFree86 and XFree86-4.  Hell, x11/XFree86-4 can't coexist
properly with the bunch of XFree86-4-* individual ports.

I don't understand the problem here.  So far, cvs@FreeBSD.org has
been exceptionally quiet on the subject, only now to start suggesting
that the proposed naming scheme is bad, after much prodding by multiple
people, including several committers.

So, instead of telling us why this is all such a bad idea, and given
that both samba 2.0.x and samba 2.2.x are of production quality, but
have substantial differences, how about suggesting a naming scheme
that might work better.  samba-devel is an inappropriate name for
2.2.x.

If cvs@ is overworked, then it needs more resource.  The bloat
caused by a sequence of sambaXX ports is minimal compared to
other activities that occur (2 ports out of 5,000+).  It has been
asked for by both the developer and end-user base.  What exactly
is the problem?

*sigh*

-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




Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20010512184850.B90400>