ports/103178: [repocopy] net/samba3 -> net/samba

Vasil Dimov vd at FreeBSD.org
Wed Sep 13 22:20:13 PDT 2006

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 at dv

Testing can show the presence of bugs, but not their absence.
                -- Edsger W. Dijkstra

More information about the freebsd-ports mailing list