From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Sep 14 06:37:43 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 32A7516A4B3 for ; Thu, 14 Sep 2006 06:37:42 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from LoN_Kamikaze@gmx.de) Received: from mail.gmx.net (mail.gmx.net [213.165.64.20]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with SMTP id D886543D53 for ; Thu, 14 Sep 2006 06:37:40 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from LoN_Kamikaze@gmx.de) Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 14 Sep 2006 06:37:39 -0000 Received: from p54A7FDD8.dip.t-dialin.net (EHLO [192.168.0.12]) [84.167.253.216] by mail.gmx.net (mp010) with SMTP; 14 Sep 2006 08:37:39 +0200 X-Authenticated: #5465401 Message-ID: <4508F8AA.50107@gmx.de> Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2006 08:37:30 +0200 From: "[LoN]Kamikaze" Organization: Lords of Nightmare User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.5 (X11/20060729) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Timur I. Bakeyev" References: <20060912071336.GA48396@qlovarnika.bg.datamax> <20060914002659.GD81030@com.bat.ru> In-Reply-To: <20060914002659.GD81030@com.bat.ru> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.94.0.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0 Cc: ports@FreeBSD.org, Vasil Dimov , 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 List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2006 06:37:43 -0000 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... It strikes me that if ports were named net/samba3 and net/samba4 people would simply assume that net/samba4 is their way to go. Maybe a meta port net/samba that always points to the latest stable release would solve that.