From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Sep 14 05:20:13 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ports@FreeBSD.org Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C7EA016A403; Thu, 14 Sep 2006 05:20:12 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from vd@datamax.bg) Received: from jengal.datamax.bg (jengal.datamax.bg [82.103.104.21]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 13DC643D6A; Thu, 14 Sep 2006 05:20:12 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from vd@datamax.bg) Received: from qlovarnika.bg.datamax (qlovarnika.bg.datamax [192.168.10.2]) by jengal.datamax.bg (Postfix) with SMTP id 032A7B844; Thu, 14 Sep 2006 08:20:11 +0300 (EEST) Received: (nullmailer pid 53754 invoked by uid 1002); Thu, 14 Sep 2006 05:20:10 -0000 Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2006 08:20:10 +0300 From: Vasil Dimov To: "Timur I\. Bakeyev" Message-ID: <20060914052010.GB12342@qlovarnika.bg.datamax> References: <20060912071336.GA48396@qlovarnika.bg.datamax> <20060914002659.GD81030@com.bat.ru> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20060914002659.GD81030@com.bat.ru> Cc: ports@FreeBSD.org, bug-followup@FreeBSD.org, portmgr@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: ports/103178: [repocopy] net/samba3 -> net/samba X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: vd@FreeBSD.org List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2006 05:20:13 -0000 On Thu, Sep 14, 2006 at 02:26:59AM +0200, Timur I. Bakeyev wrote: > Hi Vasil! > > On Tue, Sep 12, 2006 at 10:13:36AM +0300, Vasil Dimov wrote: > > > > >Description: > > > > Since net/samba (version 2) got purged we can rename net/samba3 to > > net/samba. > > The question of renaming Samba3 port arises again and again. This time > you actually did a tremendous work to track down all(?) ports that > somehow connected with Samba3. > > Ok, let me state my opinion on this question. I belive, that such > renaming is not necessary and will be more misleading than helpful. > > Samba3 is a separate product and can't really be compared to Samba2 and > Samba by the features it delivers and the way it operates. So I'd really > like it stay net/samba3 for the future, untill it'll be discontinued. > > Please, also take into account that there is Samba4 coming - I have a > version of port in my private repository, but Samba4 isn't really ready > to hit the road. Possibly, with next tech preview it'll be operational > enough to go into ports. And for Samba4 I'd really like to avoid name > like net/samba-devel. That would be just plainly wrong! There is no > correlation between Samba3 and Samba4, besides intersecting set of > developers. Not to say that we may end up with net/samba4 and > net/samba4-devel for the brave souls. > > Actually, I was always questioning, why we didn't have net/samba2 for > the previous version of port. But now it's a history, so I'd just stick > with the current naming schema. > > Can you bring any reasons for such renaming besides the fact that it is > avalable now for usage? Cause I don't see any... > You are right. The main reasons for the rename I had in mind is that net/samba is now free and that we can make samba3 the "default" samba port. But reading your points above I see that the current scheme (samba3, samba4, ...) is better than sporadically renaming ports and confusing everybody. Furthermore it is simpler to maintain. -- Vasil Dimov gro.DSBeerF@dv Testing can show the presence of bugs, but not their absence. -- Edsger W. Dijkstra