Re: Strange version inconsistency in Samba t* utils (e.g. talloc)

Hello,

>> But I think we should have taken following steps.

>> 1. Repocopy databases/tdb, devel/talloc and devel/tevent to
>> databases/tdb149, devel/talloc241 and devel/tevent015.
>> 2. Update dependencies of net/samba416 and net/samba419 from the
>> former to the latter.
>> 3. Update databases/tdb, devel/talloc and devel/tevent to the versions
>> that Smaba 4.20 requires.

>> The reason is as following.

>> Right now there are 3 Samba ports in ports tree. That is,

>> * net/samba416
>> * net/samba419
>> * net/samba420

>> net/samba416 has already reached its EoL and net/samba419 security
>> fixes only phase. So it is unlikely they requires update of
>> dependecies. You may say it is also unlikely net/samba420 requires
>> update. But when newer version of Samba, for example 4.21, has come to
>> ports tree, it is very likely it requires newer version of
>> dependencies and it is still possible net/samba420 works fine with
>> versions required by 4.21 as is the case with net/samba416 and
>> net/samba419. And when it really happens all we do is simply updating
>> generic databases/tdb, devel/talloc and devel/tevent rather than
>> creating new specific databases/tdbNNNN, devel/tallocNNN and
>> devel/teventNNN ports and removing old ones.

>> This is common practice in ports tree. And by following it we can
>> minimize the frequency to create and remove port with specific
>> version.

I agree with you. We (and my mentor 0mp) should have taken this when we
pushed this bunch of ports.

Because of EoL for net/samba416 we wanted to push a more "usuable"
version than 4.16.
4.19 has issues, seems some contributors discovered some fix on net/samba420,
that can be backported into 4.19, but the feedback on 4.19 was in some case it was
broken.

> This explains what I am seeing, but one issue is that [
> http://bsd.default-versions.mk/ | bsd.default-versions.mk ] still shows EOL
> samba416 as the default version. Is there a good reason that this has not been
> updated to either 419 or 420? I obviously don't like running EOL versions, but
> I also fear that running something other than the default will break a port
> dependent on it. I assume that maintiners more aware of these issues will deal
> with them and, in the case of samba, I really don't use it, but it gets pulled
> in by filesystems/gvfs.

This issue has been pushed for revision: https://reviews.freebsd.org/D48801, will
fix this as well.

416 is still default because some of the functionalities of samba416 still have issues
is some cases. Well we try to fix that... but.... the beast is big.

Kind regards,
Xavier