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

[Timur I. Bakeyev]

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...

With best regards,
Timur Bakeyev.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 187 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-ports/attachments/20060914/34b605e3/attachment.pgp