Date: Sun, 13 May 2001 00:31:37 -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: <000901c0db65$993d38c0$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> <001f01c0db62$7bbaede0$0200a8c0@bsod> <003201c0db62$c8cba0c0$0200a8c0@bsod> <026701c0db63$14717900$931576d8@inethouston.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Well in my opinion, i think its more proper to make them samba20 and samba22 or just samba and samba22 or something along those lines. The public may or may not agree but i guess its up to you, the maintainer, and the committers to decide :) Patrick Li <pat@databits.net> ----- Original Message ----- From: "David W. Chapman Jr." <dwcjr@inethouston.net> To: "Patrick Li" <pat@databits.net>; <freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.org> Sent: Sunday, May 13, 2001 12:13 AM Subject: Re: FreeBSD Port: samba-2.2.0_1 > I can submit a pr to change it if you could suggest what you think it should > be, but it seems like everyone is very busy so it probably won't happen > soon. > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Patrick Li" <pat@databits.net> > To: "David W. Chapman Jr." <dwcjr@inethouston.net>; > <freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.org> > Sent: Saturday, May 12, 2001 11:11 PM > Subject: Re: FreeBSD Port: samba-2.2.0_1 > > > > Another thing should be changed if it remains the way it is now is > pkg-descr > > since both are identical > > > > -pat > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Patrick Li" <pat@databits.net> > > To: "David W. Chapman Jr." <dwcjr@inethouston.net>; > > <freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.org> > > Sent: Sunday, May 13, 2001 12:09 AM > > Subject: Re: FreeBSD Port: samba-2.2.0_1 > > > > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > 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?000901c0db65$993d38c0$0200a8c0>