On Tue, Jun 05, 2007 at 11:33:35AM +0200, Andrea Venturoli wrote: > Timur I. Bakeyev wrote: > > >I would like to stress, that after problems with the last Samba releases > >I decided to delay new port for at least one week to collect feedback > >from mailing lists and other sources, as well as from developers to see, > >if there are no fatal problems with the release. Unfortunately, with > >security updates we can't wait too long, thus 3.0.25 slipped into the > >ports collection, although it possibly shouldn't. > > Ok, this is however not a fault in the way FreeBSD handles port. > This time it's samba itself that should be blamed (although I'm not > recriminating here).
Unfortunately, Samba3 became so big and hairy, that fixing one problem there creates few new. So, for the last ~10 releases this was pretty common situation when erratra release was following very quickly. > >I'm planning to ressurect net/samba3-devel port to put latest releases there, > >leaving net/samba3 for proven to work releases. > > I don't think this issues are related. > If you feel you should, then obviously go ahead, but, as I see it, both > 3.0.25 > and 3.0.25a would have gone into samba3, not samba3-devel. I want people to have something stable to work with, when new features may wait. Possibly, both samba3 and samba3-devel will have same ports in majority of the time, but not always. With best regards, Timur Bakeyev. _______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
