Date: Sat, 12 May 2001 18:22:16 -0500 From: Ade Lovett <ade@FreeBSD.org> To: John Polstra <jdp@polstra.com> Cc: sobomax@FreeBSD.ORG, ports@FreeBSD.ORG, dwcjr@inethouston.net, cvs@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: FreeBSD Port: samba-2.2.0_1 Message-ID: <20010512182216.A90400@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <XFMail.010512154807.jdp@polstra.com>; from jdp@polstra.com on Sat, May 12, 2001 at 03:48:07PM -0700 References: <200105110520.IAA31408@ipcard.iptcom.net> <XFMail.010512154807.jdp@polstra.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, May 12, 2001 at 03:48:07PM -0700, John Polstra wrote: > This naming scheme doesn't seem like it's going to scale very well. > Why does the version number have to be contained in the name of the > directory? Doing it that way will require a repo copy every time a > new version comes out. If 2.2 is the production version, then why > not upgrade "ports/net/samba" to that version? I refer the honorable gentleman to tcl80,82,83, tk80,82,83 glib12,13 gtk12,13 etc.. etc.. there is plenty of precedent for including version numbers in the port name. Regards, -aDe -- Ade Lovett, Austin, TX. ade@FreeBSD.org FreeBSD: The Power to Serve http://www.FreeBSD.org/ To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20010512182216.A90400>