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 <[email protected]> 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
> [email protected]
> http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-java-maintainers
>
_______________________________________________
pkg-java-maintainers mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-java-maintainers
