Date: Sat, 12 Mar 2011 13:18:29 -0500 From: "J. Hellenthal" <jhell@DataIX.net> To: "Timur I. Bakeyev" <timur@FreeBSD.org> Cc: ports@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: net/samba-libsmbclient SAMBA_PORT= -> SAMBA_PORT?= Message-ID: <alpine.BSF.2.00.1103121202150.2240@qvfongpu.qngnvk.ybpny> In-Reply-To: <AANLkTi=jcx=QfJ4iRZZZ9WqPeqkt%2BHM%2Bt1JCqcUxR-0Q@mail.gmail.com> References: <alpine.BSF.2.00.1103010036110.72106@qvfongpu.qngnvk.ybpny> <AANLkTi=jcx=QfJ4iRZZZ9WqPeqkt%2BHM%2Bt1JCqcUxR-0Q@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, 12 Mar 2011 10:25, timur@ wrote:
> Hi!
>
> On Tue, Mar 1, 2011 at 6:46 AM, jhell <jhell@dataix.net> wrote:
>
>> Could you please change the SAMBA_PORT= directive in samba-libsmbclient to
>> SAMBA_PORT?= samba34 so it can be overridden by make.conf or command line ?
>
> No, I believe it's a bad idea.
It's - is either a bad idea or a good one, there is no grey line where
belief should be playing a part. You either know or you don't.
>
>> There is probably some bad magic that will happen on a machine with samba35
>> installed and libsmbclient34 and I would like to stay as close as I can to
>> using the same version of samba that's installed and making the above
>> corrections would still allow for the current functionality to be kept while
>> allowing an override.
>
> The flexibility in the base port definition is done to ease my life, as
> a maintainer, not to easily switch between the versions.
That's great I am all for that but, this is not that much of a 'OMG
surprise' if a user decides to bump something like this for their own
purpose, 'just like yours'.
>
> Code wise libsmbclient in 34 and 35 should be the same, as the library
> isn't actively developed and stable. I don't want people to recompile
> firefox, for example, cause version of Samba have been bumped again -
> there is no real need for this. Another story is that it's hard to
> guaranty that that between 34, 35 and 36 version the packaging list of
> the port will remain the same.
I sort of agree with the example you have about firefox but again this is
a change that a user would subject them self to if they were to change it.
If they are reading the Makefile then I would hope if they are changing a
variable like this then they are willing to deal with the repercussions
from that change.
This variable is already hard-locked down to samba34 so adding such a minor
change as '?' to change how the variable operates does not seem like such
a bad idea. It affects nobody other than those that change it.
In any case would you mind adding a variable to the Makefile then ?
SAMBA_PORT = ${SAMBA_LIBSMBPORT:=samba34}
Which would ultimately still allow to change it by an undocumented
"SAMBA_LIBSMBPORT" variable and also allow the current conditions to still
exist if the user had already defined SAMBA_PORT in their make.conf.
PS: 3.5.8 Since 7 March 2011
http://samba.org/samba/history/samba-3.5.8.html
http://www.samba.org/samba/ftp/patches/security/samba-3.5.6-CVE-2011-0719.patch
--
Regards,
J. Hellenthal
(0x89D8547E)
JJH48-ARIN
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?alpine.BSF.2.00.1103121202150.2240>