Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Wed, 7 Apr 2004 08:30:24 -0700 (PDT)
From:      "Timur I. Bakeyev" <timur@com.bat.ru>
To:        freebsd-ports-bugs@FreeBSD.org
Subject:   Re: ports/64523: Make samba-libsmbclient subport of samba-devel
Message-ID:  <200404071530.i37FUOtN098147@freefall.freebsd.org>

next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
The following reply was made to PR ports/64523; it has been noted by GNATS.

From: "Timur I. Bakeyev" <timur@com.bat.ru>
To: Michael Nottebrock <michaelnottebrock@gmx.net>,
	freebsd-gnats-submit@FreeBSD.org, timur@com.bat.ru
Cc:  
Subject: Re: ports/64523: Make samba-libsmbclient subport of samba-devel
Date: Wed, 07 Apr 2004 17:22:49 +0200

 On Wed, 7 Apr 2004 15:21:36 +0200
   Michael Nottebrock <michaelnottebrock@gmx.net> wrote:
 >There are still issues here:
 >
 >1.) samba-devel and samba-libsmbclient still conflict 
 >with each other, which 
 >doesn't make sense. Having a client library installed 
 >must not prevent people 
 >from installing the server.
 
 This is quite compleax question, on my opinion. The 
 problem with current approach is that samba-libsmbclient 
 installs the most simplistic version of library, bare 
 bones, I'd say.
 
 In a sofisticated environment it should get linked against 
 at least LDAP and Kerberos libraries, to get wide range of 
 ways of authentication. Well, I'm not sure here, would it 
 use them or not...
 
 > Instead, samba-devel should 
 >depend on 
 >samba-libsmbclient and never install the library by 
 >itself.
 
 My point to keep libsmbclient in samba-devel is the one, 
 mentioned above, plus expences of double compilation of 
 samba tree, which isn't so small. If everyone(who depend 
 on libsmbclient) thinks it's ok, we can get rid of client 
 library from samba-devel.
 
 >2.) The slave port has stylebugs (see ports/64393).
 
 Hm.. I've looked over the whole PR and didn't find 
 anything,  in the slave port, that conflicts with the 
 statements there. Contrary, samba-devel itself has 
 problems with style and doesn't validate by portlint(but 
 thats a separate issue, that involves OPTIONS and 
 structure of bsd.ports.mk).
 
 Can you point me, what's wrong with the slave port on your 
 opinion?
 
 Oh, and thanks for the patch for samba-devel!
 
 With regards,
 Timur.



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200404071530.i37FUOtN098147>