Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2006 08:37:30 +0200 From: "[LoN]Kamikaze" <LoN_Kamikaze@gmx.de> To: "Timur I. Bakeyev" <timur@com.bat.ru> Cc: ports@FreeBSD.org, Vasil Dimov <vd@FreeBSD.org>, bug-followup@FreeBSD.org, portmgr@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: ports/103178: [repocopy] net/samba3 -> net/samba Message-ID: <4508F8AA.50107@gmx.de> In-Reply-To: <20060914002659.GD81030@com.bat.ru> References: <20060912071336.GA48396@qlovarnika.bg.datamax> <20060914002659.GD81030@com.bat.ru>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4508F8AA.50107>