Marcus Better wrote: > I have a hard time seeing the validity or relevance of any of the > arguments for not sticking with the "jetty" package name.
Taking into account the fact that the current package is broken and hardly used, I can see your point. >> So the only valid argument are playing nicely with Ubuntu, > > Well, that's not a priority for me, others may feel differently... You should certainly not make the choice based on that. >>> 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). > > That warrants a NEWS entry, or perhaps a maintainer script should turn > off NO_START if we are upgrading from Jetty 5. 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. So it could make sense to clearly separate it from its broken cousin ? Cheers, -- Thierry Carrez Ubuntu server team _______________________________________________ pkg-java-maintainers mailing list [email protected] http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-java-maintainers
