Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2006 02:26:59 +0200 From: "Timur I. Bakeyev" <timur@com.bat.ru> To: Vasil Dimov <vd@FreeBSD.org> Cc: ports@FreeBSD.org, bug-followup@FreeBSD.org, portmgr@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: ports/103178: [repocopy] net/samba3 -> net/samba Message-ID: <20060914002659.GD81030@com.bat.ru> In-Reply-To: <20060912071336.GA48396@qlovarnika.bg.datamax> References: <20060912071336.GA48396@qlovarnika.bg.datamax>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--EeQfGwPcQSOJBaQU Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Vasil! On Tue, Sep 12, 2006 at 10:13:36AM +0300, Vasil Dimov wrote: >=20 > >Description: >=20 > 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... With best regards, Timur Bakeyev. --EeQfGwPcQSOJBaQU Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQFFCKHSC/BkEmC6H0cRAoFzAJ9VLp3XZcHsaNLJd2680UVjACw0fACgmSz7 rBRR0WqE8cj1x8v1FXaswGQ= =7nAv -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --EeQfGwPcQSOJBaQU--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20060914002659.GD81030>