Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2006 10:49:29 +0400 From: "Andrew Pantyukhin" <infofarmer@FreeBSD.org> To: "[LoN]Kamikaze" <LoN_Kamikaze@gmx.de> Cc: ports@freebsd.org, Vasil Dimov <vd@freebsd.org>, "Timur I. Bakeyev" <timur@com.bat.ru>, bug-followup@freebsd.org, portmgr@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ports/103178: [repocopy] net/samba3 -> net/samba Message-ID: <cb5206420609132349i9150836w35bd127bf5c69626@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <4508F8AA.50107@gmx.de> References: <20060912071336.GA48396@qlovarnika.bg.datamax> <20060914002659.GD81030@com.bat.ru> <4508F8AA.50107@gmx.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 9/14/06, [LoN]Kamikaze <LoN_Kamikaze@gmx.de> wrote: > 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. We've got mysql, postgresql, all the php4-* and php5-* stuff, apache and quite a lot of other examples of versioned port directories - and there's no sign of users hitting a wall with unstable versions just because they thought "the newer the better".
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?cb5206420609132349i9150836w35bd127bf5c69626>