net/samba-libsmbclient SAMBA_PORT= -> SAMBA_PORT?=

J. Hellenthal jhell at
Sat Mar 12 18:18:42 UTC 2011

On Sat, 12 Mar 2011 10:25, timur@ wrote:
> Hi!
> On Tue, Mar 1, 2011 at 6:46 AM, jhell <jhell at> wrote:
>> Could you please change the SAMBA_PORT= directive in samba-libsmbclient to
>> SAMBA_PORT?= samba34 so it can be overridden by make.conf or command line ?
> No, I believe it's a bad idea.

It's - is either a bad idea or a good one, there is no grey line where 
belief should be playing a part. You either know or you don't.

>> There is probably some bad magic that will happen on a machine with samba35
>> installed and libsmbclient34 and I would like to stay as close as I can to
>> using the same version of samba that's installed and making the above
>> corrections would still allow for the current functionality to be kept while
>> allowing an override.
> The flexibility in the base port definition is done to ease my life, as 
> a maintainer, not to easily switch between the versions.

That's great I am all for that but, this is not that much of a 'OMG 
surprise' if a user decides to bump something like this for their own 
purpose, 'just like yours'.

> Code wise libsmbclient in 34 and 35 should be the same, as the library 
> isn't actively developed and stable. I don't want people to recompile 
> firefox, for example, cause version of Samba have been bumped again - 
> there is no real need for this. Another story is that it's hard to 
> guaranty that that between 34, 35 and 36 version the packaging list of 
> the port will remain the same.

I sort of agree with the example you have about firefox but again this is 
a change that a user would subject them self to if they were to change it. 
If they are reading the Makefile then I would hope if they are changing a 
variable like this then they are willing to deal with the repercussions 
from that change.

This variable is already hard-locked down to samba34 so adding such a minor 
change as '?' to change how the variable operates does not seem like such 
a bad idea. It affects nobody other than those that change it.

In any case would you mind adding a variable to the Makefile then ?


Which would ultimately still allow to change it by an undocumented 
"SAMBA_LIBSMBPORT" variable and also allow the current conditions to still 
exist if the user had already defined SAMBA_PORT in their make.conf.

PS: 3.5.8 Since 7 March 2011



  J. Hellenthal

More information about the freebsd-ports mailing list