Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2001 09:18:43 +0300 From: Peter Pentchev <roam@orbitel.bg> To: "David W. Chapman Jr." <dwcjr@inethouston.net> Cc: ports@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Reminder samba-devel -> samba22 Message-ID: <20010424091843.B22159@ringworld.oblivion.bg> In-Reply-To: <083601c0cc86$07e1dae0$931576d8@inethouston.net>; from dwcjr@inethouston.net on Tue, Apr 24, 2001 at 01:15:57AM -0500 References: <080e01c0cc84$0e693860$931576d8@inethouston.net> <20010424090458.A22159@ringworld.oblivion.bg> <083601c0cc86$07e1dae0$931576d8@inethouston.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
I think Maxim Sobolev's suggestion about samba20 and samba was most to the point, although, with the need for a samba-devel port, there get to be three Samba ports.. I don't necessarily think that's a bad thing. G'luck, Peter -- This sentence every third, but it still comprehensible. On Tue, Apr 24, 2001 at 01:15:57AM -0500, David W. Chapman Jr. wrote: > That's true, but some people expressed concern for those who wanted to stick > with 2.0.8 and just have samba20 and samba22 in the ports. Either way is > fine for me just as long as samba-devel doesn't stay that way forever. > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Peter Pentchev" <roam@orbitel.bg> > To: "David W. Chapman Jr." <dwcjr@inethouston.net> > Cc: <ports@FreeBSD.org> > Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2001 1:04 AM > Subject: Re: Reminder samba-devel -> samba22 > > > > On Tue, Apr 24, 2001 at 01:01:51AM -0500, David W. Chapman Jr. wrote: > > > Just a reminder to whomever takes care of this to rename samba-devel to > > > samba22 since it isn't alpha anymore. > > > > I don't really know if samba22 is a good name.. Isn't it supposed to > > be just 'samba' now that it is the 'official' branch? 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?20010424091843.B22159>