Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2007 21:15:38 +0200 From: Uwe Laverenz <uwe@laverenz.de> To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [net/samba3] Upgrade to Samba 3.0.25a Message-ID: <20070606191538.GB17016@laverenz.de> In-Reply-To: <4666EB90.7020303@FreeBSD.org> References: <5fbf03c20706050031p6f25d02cyae7a91593e40171a@mail.gmail.com> <20070605082244.GB22215@com.bat.ru> <46652DEF.1070709@netfence.it> <20070605124644.GD22215@com.bat.ru> <4665E9A1.2030402@FreeBSD.org> <20070606074347.GA8107@laverenz.de> <4666EB90.7020303@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, Jun 06, 2007 at 10:14:56AM -0700, Doug Barton wrote: > Well boo hoo! If you're smart enough to be useful in testing new > versions, you're smart enough to modify the port yourself, or build > the software without the port. Yes, I guess that's true. > Sorry to be so flippant, but this whole line of reasoning is absurd. A No problem, but I didn't mean it as hard as you might have read it, maybe my English is not clear enough sometimes: I wanted to express that I like the fact that FreeBSD ports are so close to the upstream versions. Other systems tend to deliver heavily patched and outdated versions. I certainly don't think that every untested bleeding edge software should go into ports, but normally an official samba-release fixes more problems than introducing new ones. > port maintainer has to take the best interests of the majority of the > userbase into account, not cater to edge cases, especially when the > edge cases ought to be able to get their own hands dirty. Yes, of course. > I also think it's useful to keep in mind that we are giving you the > bits for free, and there is nothing stopping you from doing whatever > you want to do with them. I know. I'm sorry if you got the impression I wouldn't appreciate your work. I guess my English is just too clumsy to be precise enough sometimes. Uwe
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20070606191538.GB17016>