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>