From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Mar 12 18:18:42 2011 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 201951065670; Sat, 12 Mar 2011 18:18:42 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jhellenthal@gmail.com) Received: from mail-iw0-f182.google.com (mail-iw0-f182.google.com [209.85.214.182]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C55318FC14; Sat, 12 Mar 2011 18:18:41 +0000 (UTC) Received: by iwn33 with SMTP id 33so4363141iwn.13 for ; Sat, 12 Mar 2011 10:18:41 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:sender:date:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to :message-id:references:user-agent:x-openpgp-key-id :x-openpgp-key-fingerprint:mime-version:content-type; bh=POLy2l2EsZL60aoUpnIaAM32fAWi6VmwBiKHTDcTAyQ=; b=cpPgOENKdUnCvF8pzw3gW9bGZvY1ZP23lo9ul5kqbI11jC9DojU2kUEqlK4UpPXeUR QtKG3Aoh3Ef0+8RgAk66fc0sBpCcGCD5L2V9TuijJrSVUdds+VcXSOjHvINnm7G4dIXU RNXyyzy7dz/Bg6mUgcdlGeZpSptfQ7XBjxaxs= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=sender:date:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:message-id:references :user-agent:x-openpgp-key-id:x-openpgp-key-fingerprint:mime-version :content-type; b=IZ1xwwEWDfUulFY+8lzi8cuGxEuv8Tp/lDUF18Pyt5kBhrILFcYqT/mGhFef3i8T1H EJfk3pmKMrINZwPm/zU7U5JvYQ+gwXLJnQrLWwcs8DLuWetJsznBjKXPLSXIl5MnREPu j1mUvEuqdBPcGM2tmU6TOOKID6Seq8o+EjRNA= Received: by 10.43.44.6 with SMTP id ue6mr6645012icb.69.1299953920984; Sat, 12 Mar 2011 10:18:40 -0800 (PST) Received: from disbatch.dataix.local (adsl-99-19-43-28.dsl.klmzmi.sbcglobal.net [99.19.43.28]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id wf3sm1316800icb.21.2011.03.12.10.18.38 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Sat, 12 Mar 2011 10:18:39 -0800 (PST) Sender: "J. Hellenthal" Date: Sat, 12 Mar 2011 13:18:29 -0500 From: "J. Hellenthal" To: "Timur I. Bakeyev" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (BSF 1167 2008-08-23) X-OpenPGP-Key-Id: 0x89D8547E X-OpenPGP-Key-Fingerprint: 85EF E26B 07BB 3777 76BE B12A 9057 8789 89D8 547E MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Cc: ports@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: net/samba-libsmbclient SAMBA_PORT= -> SAMBA_PORT?= 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: Sat, 12 Mar 2011 18:18:42 -0000 On Sat, 12 Mar 2011 10:25, timur@ wrote: > Hi! > > On Tue, Mar 1, 2011 at 6:46 AM, jhell 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