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.
Ludovic [email protected] a écrit : > 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. (E.g 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
