Date: Sun, 13 May 2001 00:09:19 -0400 From: "Patrick Li" <pat@databits.net> To: "David W. Chapman Jr." <dwcjr@inethouston.net>, <freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.org> Subject: Re: FreeBSD Port: samba-2.2.0_1 Message-ID: <001f01c0db62$7bbaede0$0200a8c0@bsod> References: <XFMail.010512163006.jdp@polstra.com> <01b601c0db3c$5b02ba40$931576d8@inethouston.net> <002d01c0db41$70cdda30$0200a8c0@bsod> <01c201c0db57$7273c000$931576d8@inethouston.net> <004f01c0db59$9e6fe740$0200a8c0@bsod> <021c01c0db5a$6b946200$931576d8@inethouston.net> <20010512222441.N29602@casimir.physics.purdue.edu> <023401c0db5d$7838be40$931576d8@inethouston.net> <20010512223512.O29602@casimir.physics.purdue.edu> <023e01c0db5f$0e2d4dc0$931576d8@inethouston.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
I can't agree more than what David said here. Its a fact that both are stable and is not in the development stage anymore. 2.2.0 is stable and has more features and bugs to sort out and between samba versions 2.0.9 and 2.2.0 is quite a big change. I noticed a lot more features that was not present with 2.0.9 but 2.0.9 is still preferred by me since there are still some stuff like bugs needed to be worked on in 2.2.0 and some prefer 2.2.0 for the additional features, testing, or whatever it may be. Well naming one samba and one to samba-stable or just copy samba to samba-stable is not technically correct since both are stable. Keeping them samba and samba-devel, well, wont also be technically be correct since both are not in development stage anymore but another way of looking at it, keeping samba-devel to 2.2.x, some people may think that 2.2.0 still have bugs to fix and not as stable as 2.0.9. Hehe maybe we all should join the *cough* debate team. :) Patrick Li <pat@databits.net> ----- Original Message ----- From: "David W. Chapman Jr." <dwcjr@inethouston.net> To: "Will Andrews" <will@physics.purdue.edu> Cc: "Will Andrews" <will@physics.purdue.edu>; "Patrick Li" <pat@databits.net>; <freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG> Sent: Saturday, May 12, 2001 11:44 PM Subject: Re: FreeBSD Port: samba-2.2.0_1 > I really don't care how its done, I just am waiting on someone who can do > it, do it in a way that pleases them so we can stop this thread already :) > But I don't think it should be samba-stable, because both 2.0.9 and 2.2.0 > are considered stable, its just that 2.0.9 has all the known bugs found and > some are still popping up with 2.2.0. > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Will Andrews" <will@physics.purdue.edu> > To: "David W. Chapman Jr." <dwcjr@inethouston.net> > Cc: "Will Andrews" <will@physics.purdue.edu>; "Patrick Li" > <pat@databits.net>; <freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG> > Sent: Saturday, May 12, 2001 10:35 PM > Subject: Re: FreeBSD Port: samba-2.2.0_1 > > > > On Sat, May 12, 2001 at 10:33:25PM -0500, David W. Chapman Jr. wrote: > > > But its not in development anymore, its like calling XFree86-4, > > > XFree86-4-devel. I wouldn't mind keeping up the -devel branch of samba > for > > > samba 3.0, but I currently can't do that without making 2.0.9 > unavailable, > > > which a few people still need access to. > > > > So repocopy samba to samba-stable and have 3 levels of samba support. > > > > -- > > wca > > > > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org > > with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message > > > > > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org > with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message > 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?001f01c0db62$7bbaede0$0200a8c0>