From nobody@FreeBSD.org  Sat Apr 21 13:21:57 2001
Return-Path: <nobody@FreeBSD.org>
Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (freefall.freebsd.org [216.136.204.21])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 241A537B423
	for <freebsd-gnats-submit@FreeBSD.org>; Sat, 21 Apr 2001 13:21:57 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from nobody@FreeBSD.org)
Received: (from nobody@localhost)
	by freefall.freebsd.org (8.11.1/8.11.1) id f3LKLvf78459;
	Sat, 21 Apr 2001 13:21:57 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from nobody)
Message-Id: <200104212021.f3LKLvf78459@freefall.freebsd.org>
Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2001 13:21:57 -0700 (PDT)
From: panic@subphase.de
To: freebsd-gnats-submit@FreeBSD.org
Subject: ports/net/samba and samba-devel
X-Send-Pr-Version: www-1.0

>Number:         26757
>Category:       ports
>Synopsis:       ports/net/samba and samba-devel
>Confidential:   no
>Severity:       non-critical
>Priority:       low
>Responsible:    freebsd-ports
>State:          closed
>Quarter:        
>Keywords:       
>Date-Required:  
>Class:          change-request
>Submitter-Id:   current-users
>Arrival-Date:   Sat Apr 21 13:30:00 PDT 2001
>Closed-Date:    Wed Apr 25 01:29:33 PDT 2001
>Last-Modified:  Wed Apr 25 01:31:16 PDT 2001
>Originator:     Steven Enderle
>Release:        current ports [2001-04-21]
>Organization:
none
>Environment:
>Description:
net/samba-devel in the ports tree is currently samba-2.2.0
net/samba is samba-2.0.8

Since Samba 2.2.0 is officialy released, i think the name -devel is missleading.
net/samba20 and net/samba22 are more correct

maybe you should fix that...
>How-To-Repeat:

>Fix:

>Release-Note:
>Audit-Trail:
Responsible-Changed-From-To: freebsd-bugs->freebsd-ports 
Responsible-Changed-By: dd 
Responsible-Changed-When: Sat Apr 21 13:44:58 PDT 2001 
Responsible-Changed-Why:  
If this isn't a ports issue I don't know what is.. 

http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=26757 
State-Changed-From-To: open->closed 
State-Changed-By: dougb 
State-Changed-When: Wed Apr 25 01:29:33 PDT 2001 
State-Changed-Why:  

This change will happen when the time is right. The maintainer 
of both ports is aware of the situation. 

In the future, please pick more appropriate priorities for 
your PR's, and start discussions of this nature on freebsd-ports. 

Thanks. 

http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=26757 
>Unformatted:
