Date: Sat, 12 May 2001 21:50:19 -0500 From: "David W. Chapman Jr." <dwcjr@inethouston.net> To: "Patrick Li" <pat@databits.net>, <freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.org> Subject: Re: FreeBSD Port: samba-2.2.0_1 Message-ID: <01c201c0db57$7273c000$931576d8@inethouston.net> References: <XFMail.010512163006.jdp@polstra.com> <01b601c0db3c$5b02ba40$931576d8@inethouston.net> <002d01c0db41$70cdda30$0200a8c0@bsod>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
samba20 and samba22 has been proposed, byt some people are rejecting it. ----- 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 7:12 PM Subject: Re: FreeBSD Port: samba-2.2.0_1 > how about samba20 and samba22 and change description in pkg-descr to not > confuse people. > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "David W. Chapman Jr." <dwcjr@inethouston.net> > To: "John Polstra" <jdp@polstra.com>; "Ade Lovett" <ade@FreeBSD.org> > Cc: <cvs@FreeBSD.org>; <ports@FreeBSD.org>; <sobomax@FreeBSD.org> > Sent: Saturday, May 12, 2001 7:36 PM > Subject: Re: FreeBSD Port: samba-2.2.0_1 > > > > So how do we have both ports exist without confusing people by keeping > samba > > 2.2.0 as samba devel, because I've gotten a few emails about people > > wondering about its stability. > > > > > > 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?01c201c0db57$7273c000$931576d8>