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

[[LoN]Kamikaze]

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...

It strikes me that if ports were named net/samba3 and net/samba4 people
would simply assume that net/samba4 is their way to go.

Maybe a meta port net/samba that always points to the latest stable
release would solve that.