Re: jetty6 vs jetty as a package name
On Sun, Jul 26, 2009 at 02:31:19PM +0200, Thierry Carrez wrote: Michael Koch wrote: On Sat, Jul 25, 2009 at 12:33:45PM +0200, Torsten Werner wrote: The discussion is probably over because jetty 6.1.19-1 has been accepted into experimental. But we can still call the next major version jetty7. As long as jetty 6.x is not in unstable nothing is decided. Its still possible to do jetty 5.x uploads to unstable and upload jetty6 6.x to unstable too. OK, let me know what your final decision is on how it will be named once it reaches unstable. It will affect the name of the package I'll soon upload to Ubuntu to provide Jetty6 libraries to Eucalyptus. It will still make a much simpler sync in the future if it were called jetty6, but it's still your decision :) Personally I see the is as another reason to name it jetty6 as collaboration is important for us. Even when I dont use Ubuntu myself I think we should collaborate as much as possible to manage our developer resources better. I doesn't make sense to make the life of our developers more hard then it already is. Cheers, Michael ___ pkg-java-maintainers mailing list pkg-java-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-java-maintainers
Re: jetty6 vs jetty as a package name
The discussion is probably over because jetty 6.1.19-1 has been accepted into experimental. But we can still call the next major version jetty7. Cheers, Torsten ___ pkg-java-maintainers mailing list pkg-java-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-java-maintainers
Re: jetty6 vs jetty as a package name
Well that's the way it is. I was too slow on this, busy with other things. Jetty 7 is getting close to a release version and its API has changed completely, so yes we'll need to use jetty7 as the package name. Ludovic Ludovic Torsten Werner a écrit : The discussion is probably over because jetty 6.1.19-1 has been accepted into experimental. But we can still call the next major version jetty7. Cheers, Torsten ___ pkg-java-maintainers mailing list pkg-java-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-java-maintainers ___ pkg-java-maintainers mailing list pkg-java-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-java-maintainers
Re: jetty6 vs jetty as a package name
On Sat, Jul 25, 2009 at 12:33:45PM +0200, Torsten Werner wrote: The discussion is probably over because jetty 6.1.19-1 has been accepted into experimental. But we can still call the next major version jetty7. As long as jetty 6.x is not in unstable nothing is decided. Its still possible to do jetty 5.x uploads to unstable and upload jetty6 6.x to unstable too. Cheers, Michael ___ pkg-java-maintainers mailing list pkg-java-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-java-maintainers
Re: jetty6 vs jetty as a package name
On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 2:39 AM, Torsten Wernertwer...@debian.org wrote: On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 11:03 PM, Thierry Carrezthierry.car...@ubuntu.com wrote: It also uses a different default port, by the way. My point is that the packaging is different, the upstream product is a major rewrite version, so it's clearly not the same thing. Renaming the package to jetty6 makes it more flexible (even if we might not need the flexibility currently). That is why I am in the jetty6 camp now. Should I ask the ftp-masters to reject the current jetty upload? I am willing to upload a jetty6 package. I agree with Marcus here. There are not very convincing reasons for the package rename. How many rdepends are there for current version of jetty? If there are not many and those which are can be migrated easily then I don't see a need of source package rename. Onkar ___ pkg-java-maintainers mailing list pkg-java-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-java-maintainers
Re: jetty6 vs jetty as a package name
Hello Thierry, I have no preference between jetty and jetty6. I already renamed jetty6 to jetty after a suggestion from Marcus Better, I can reverse this change easily. With only 14 reported installations according to popcon stats, I don't think that upgrade issues are that important. http://qa.debian.org/developer.php?popcon=jetty So the only valid argument are playing nicely with Ubuntu, and aligning the package names with what is done with Tomcat. At this point, I think it's better to ask the Debian Java maintainers for an opinion, I don't know what to do. My 'jetty' package has already been sponsored by Torsten Werner, and it has been in the NEW queue for 8 days. Ludovic Thierry Carrez a écrit : Hello guys, I was wondering if you would reconsider the package naming for Jetty 6.1.19 in Debian (use jetty6 instead of jetty). The rationale behind this request is that jetty6 packaging, packagesplit and startup method evolved a lot since jetty5, sufficiently so that it's really a different package. You should expect some jetty5-jetty6 upgrade problems if you do it as a regular jetty - jetty package upgrade (for example, addition of a /etc/default/jetty file means that a jetty server that was starting will no longer start automatically after the upgrade until you edit NO_START in /etc/default/jetty). And there isn't so much value in trying to upgrade in place existing jetty(5) systems : their API level changes so webapps need review anyway. From an upstream point of view, David already made his point. Finally, from a Debian Java world point of view, this aligns jetty with Tomcat in terms of versioning / specsupport / packagename logic. It prepares future jetty7 as a separate package as well. The idea would be for Debian to ship both and then phase out the old one (like the nagios[23] migration) when the new one is proven. Of course, there is an Ubuntu-specific reason for me asking this :) I need Jetty 6 libraries in Ubuntu main for Eucalyptus, and there is no way a freshly-imported complex package from Debian experimental could make it into main so quickly. So my plan is to upload a jetty6 package that would only build the libjetty-*-java libraries. It would be simpler, and not a replacement/upgrade over the jetty package. This would work a lot better if Debian was naming it the same : then I could let the Ubuntu Debian merge operate its magic on the next release when the Debian jetty6 reaches unstable, and get rid of the legacy jetty package sometime in the future like you would. Let me know what you think of that. Marcus Better a écrit : Ludovic Claude wrote: I am looking for a sponsor for my package jetty6. Nice, it is badly needed. The upload would fix these bugs: 425152, 454529, 458399, 498582, 527571, 528389, 530720 No it wouldn't. Those are filed against the jetty package which is still in the archive. Your package is named jetty6. Perhaps the best would be to use the existing package names, especially since the current jetty packages should be removed/replaced anyway and a removal will mean extra work. Cheers, Marcus ___ pkg-java-maintainers mailing list pkg-java-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-java-maintainers
Re: jetty6 vs jetty as a package name
Hello, just to through my two cents into the ring... On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 12:21:45PM +0100, Ludovic Claude wrote: Hello Thierry, I have no preference between jetty and jetty6. I already renamed jetty6 to jetty after a suggestion from Marcus Better, I can reverse this change easily. With only 14 reported installations according to popcon stats, I don't think that upgrade issues are that important. http://qa.debian.org/developer.php?popcon=jetty So the only valid argument are playing nicely with Ubuntu, and aligning the package names with what is done with Tomcat. At this point, I think it's better to ask the Debian Java maintainers for an opinion, I don't know what to do. My 'jetty' package has already been sponsored by Torsten Werner, and it has been in the NEW queue for 8 days. In the past (long ago, I dont know the current status) Eclipse starting with version 3.3 or 3.4 depended on Jetty version 5.x. Jetty 6.x just was not compatible. That was a reason to name Jetty 6.x jetty6 and not use jetty as we needed/wanted both versions of Jetty in the archive. I dont know if this situation improved or if we should care at all about this now. Cheers, Michael Thierry Carrez a écrit : Hello guys, I was wondering if you would reconsider the package naming for Jetty 6.1.19 in Debian (use jetty6 instead of jetty). The rationale behind this request is that jetty6 packaging, packagesplit and startup method evolved a lot since jetty5, sufficiently so that it's really a different package. You should expect some jetty5-jetty6 upgrade problems if you do it as a regular jetty - jetty package upgrade (for example, addition of a /etc/default/jetty file means that a jetty server that was starting will no longer start automatically after the upgrade until you edit NO_START in /etc/default/jetty). And there isn't so much value in trying to upgrade in place existing jetty(5) systems : their API level changes so webapps need review anyway. From an upstream point of view, David already made his point. Finally, from a Debian Java world point of view, this aligns jetty with Tomcat in terms of versioning / specsupport / packagename logic. It prepares future jetty7 as a separate package as well. The idea would be for Debian to ship both and then phase out the old one (like the nagios[23] migration) when the new one is proven. Of course, there is an Ubuntu-specific reason for me asking this :) I need Jetty 6 libraries in Ubuntu main for Eucalyptus, and there is no way a freshly-imported complex package from Debian experimental could make it into main so quickly. So my plan is to upload a jetty6 package that would only build the libjetty-*-java libraries. It would be simpler, and not a replacement/upgrade over the jetty package. This would work a lot better if Debian was naming it the same : then I could let the Ubuntu Debian merge operate its magic on the next release when the Debian jetty6 reaches unstable, and get rid of the legacy jetty package sometime in the future like you would. Let me know what you think of that. Marcus Better a écrit : Ludovic Claude wrote: I am looking for a sponsor for my package jetty6. Nice, it is badly needed. The upload would fix these bugs: 425152, 454529, 458399, 498582, 527571, 528389, 530720 No it wouldn't. Those are filed against the jetty package which is still in the archive. Your package is named jetty6. Perhaps the best would be to use the existing package names, especially since the current jetty packages should be removed/replaced anyway and a removal will mean extra work. Cheers, Marcus ___ pkg-java-maintainers mailing list pkg-java-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-java-maintainers ___ pkg-java-maintainers mailing list pkg-java-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-java-maintainers
Re: Re: jetty6 vs jetty as a package name
jetty - mortbay jetty5 servlet-2.4 impl jetty6 - mortbay jetty6 architectural change, done from scratch, servlet-2.5 impl jetty7 - eclipse jetty7 (servlet-2.5 impl) jetty8 - eclipse jetty8 (servlet-3.0 impl) If that naming convention is followed, any of them can co-exist on a machine. (Eg eclipse still uses jetty5 internally but your project could be using jetty6 on the same machine) My 2C. Cheers On Jul 22, 2009 9:12pm, Michael Koch konque...@gmx.de wrote: Hello, just to through my two cents into the ring... On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 12:21:45PM +0100, Ludovic Claude wrote: Hello Thierry, I have no preference between jetty and jetty6. I already renamed jetty6 to jetty after a suggestion from Marcus Better, I can reverse this change easily. With only 14 reported installations according to popcon stats, I don't think that upgrade issues are that important. http://qa.debian.org/developer.php?popcon=jetty So the only valid argument are playing nicely with Ubuntu, and aligning the package names with what is done with Tomcat. At this point, I think it's better to ask the Debian Java maintainers for an opinion, I don't know what to do. My 'jetty' package has already been sponsored by Torsten Werner, and it has been in the NEW queue for 8 days. In the past (long ago, I dont know the current status) Eclipse starting with version 3.3 or 3.4 depended on Jetty version 5.x. Jetty 6.x just was not compatible. That was a reason to name Jetty 6.x jetty6 and not use jetty as we needed/wanted both versions of Jetty in the archive. I dont know if this situation improved or if we should care at all about this now. Cheers, Michael Thierry Carrez a écrit : Hello guys, I was wondering if you would reconsider the package naming for Jetty 6.1.19 in Debian (use jetty6 instead of jetty). The rationale behind this request is that jetty6 packaging, packagesplit and startup method evolved a lot since jetty5, sufficiently so that it's really a different package. You should expect some jetty5-jetty6 upgrade problems if you do it as a regular jetty - jetty package upgrade (for example, addition of a /etc/default/jetty file means that a jetty server that was starting will no longer start automatically after the upgrade until you edit NO_START in /etc/default/jetty). And there isn't so much value in trying to upgrade in place existing jetty(5) systems : their API level changes so webapps need review anyway. From an upstream point of view, David already made his point. Finally, from a Debian Java world point of view, this aligns jetty with Tomcat in terms of versioning / specsupport / packagename logic. It prepares future jetty7 as a separate package as well. The idea would be for Debian to ship both and then phase out the old one (like the nagios[23] migration) when the new one is proven. Of course, there is an Ubuntu-specific reason for me asking this :) I need Jetty 6 libraries in Ubuntu main for Eucalyptus, and there is no way a freshly-imported complex package from Debian experimental could make it into main so quickly. So my plan is to upload a jetty6 package that would only build the libjetty-*-java libraries. It would be simpler, and not a replacement/upgrade over the jetty package. This would work a lot better if Debian was naming it the same : then I could let the Ubuntu Debian merge operate its magic on the next release when the Debian jetty6 reaches unstable, and get rid of the legacy jetty package sometime in the future like you would. Let me know what you think of that. Marcus Better a écrit : Ludovic Claude wrote: I am looking for a sponsor for my package jetty6. Nice, it is badly needed. The upload would fix these bugs: 425152, 454529, 458399, 498582, 527571, 528389, 530720 No it wouldn't. Those are filed against the jetty package which is still in the archive. Your package is named jetty6. Perhaps the best would be to use the existing package names, especially since the current jetty packages should be removed/replaced anyway and a removal will mean extra work. Cheers, Marcus ___ pkg-java-maintainers mailing list pkg-java-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-java-maintainers ___ pkg-java-maintainers mailing list pkg-java-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-java-maintainers
Re: jetty6 vs jetty as a package name
Hi Ludovic, On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 6:25 PM, Ludovic Claudeludovic.cla...@laposte.net wrote: That makes 2 people in favour of using 'jetty6' for the name of the package for Jetty 6.x. Anybody wants to keep the name 'jetty'? If I get one more vote on jetty6, I will rename my package. I have no preference. We need to ask the ftp-masters to reject the jetty package in NEW if you want to rename it. Cheers, Torsten ___ pkg-java-maintainers mailing list pkg-java-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-java-maintainers
Re: jetty6 vs jetty as a package name
On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 11:03 PM, Thierry Carrezthierry.car...@ubuntu.com wrote: It also uses a different default port, by the way. My point is that the packaging is different, the upstream product is a major rewrite version, so it's clearly not the same thing. Renaming the package to jetty6 makes it more flexible (even if we might not need the flexibility currently). That is why I am in the jetty6 camp now. Should I ask the ftp-masters to reject the current jetty upload? I am willing to upload a jetty6 package. Cheers, Torsten ___ pkg-java-maintainers mailing list pkg-java-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-java-maintainers
