From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Jun 6 17:14:58 2007 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 886F316A41F for ; Wed, 6 Jun 2007 17:14:58 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from dougb@FreeBSD.org) Received: from mail2.fluidhosting.com (mx21.fluidhosting.com [204.14.89.4]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 23D0C13C465 for ; Wed, 6 Jun 2007 17:14:58 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from dougb@FreeBSD.org) Received: (qmail 29054 invoked by uid 399); 6 Jun 2007 17:14:57 -0000 Received: from localhost (HELO lap.dougb.net) (dougb@dougbarton.us@127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 6 Jun 2007 17:14:57 -0000 X-Originating-IP: 127.0.0.1 Message-ID: <4666EB90.7020303@FreeBSD.org> Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2007 10:14:56 -0700 From: Doug Barton Organization: http://www.FreeBSD.org/ User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.0 (X11/20070525) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org References: <5fbf03c20706050031p6f25d02cyae7a91593e40171a@mail.gmail.com> <20070605082244.GB22215@com.bat.ru> <46652DEF.1070709@netfence.it> <20070605124644.GD22215@com.bat.ru> <4665E9A1.2030402@FreeBSD.org> <20070606074347.GA8107@laverenz.de> In-Reply-To: <20070606074347.GA8107@laverenz.de> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.0 OpenPGP: id=D5B2F0FB Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [net/samba3] Upgrade to Samba 3.0.25a 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: Wed, 06 Jun 2007 17:14:58 -0000 Uwe Laverenz wrote: > On Tue, Jun 05, 2007 at 03:54:25PM -0700, Doug Barton wrote: > >> I think it's very reasonable, and well in keeping with FreeBSD >> tradition, to delay upgrading to a new release of ported software >> until the maintainer is convinced that it's safe to do so. I have > > Yes, but on the other hand it is the server admin's job to test new > software and to decide if and when he starts to deploy it on his > production machines. Yes of course that's true, but it's not related to the matter at hand. > And what about those users/admins who want to test > new samba versions to actively help the samba team with improving the > software? They would have to modify the port on their own to get the > newest version. Well boo hoo! If you're smart enough to be useful in testing new versions, you're smart enough to modify the port yourself, or build the software without the port. Sorry to be so flippant, but this whole line of reasoning is absurd. A port maintainer has to take the best interests of the majority of the userbase into account, not cater to edge cases, especially when the edge cases ought to be able to get their own hands dirty. I also think it's useful to keep in mind that we are giving you the bits for free, and there is nothing stopping you from doing whatever you want to do with them. Doug -- This .signature sanitized for your protection