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 [email protected] http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-java-maintainers
