Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2006 08:20:10 +0300 From: Vasil Dimov <vd@FreeBSD.org> To: "Timur I\. Bakeyev" <timur@com.bat.ru> Cc: ports@FreeBSD.org, bug-followup@FreeBSD.org, portmgr@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: ports/103178: [repocopy] net/samba3 -> net/samba Message-ID: <20060914052010.GB12342@qlovarnika.bg.datamax> 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
On Thu, Sep 14, 2006 at 02:26:59AM +0200, 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...
>
You are right.
The main reasons for the rename I had in mind is that net/samba is
now free and that we can make samba3 the "default" samba port. But
reading your points above I see that the current scheme (samba3, samba4,
...) is better than sporadically renaming ports and confusing everybody.
Furthermore it is simpler to maintain.
--
Vasil Dimov
gro.DSBeerF@dv
Testing can show the presence of bugs, but not their absence.
-- Edsger W. Dijkstra
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20060914052010.GB12342>