-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Hi,
I have a hard time seeing the validity or relevance of any of the arguments for not sticking with the "jetty" package name. > [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. You realise that there is no way we are going to have all of these in Debian at the same time? The current Jetty 5 packages are going away immediately one way or another, and in general we try to avoid keeping multiple versions in the archive in parallel. >>> On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 12:21:45PM +0100, Ludovic Claude wrote: >>>> With only 14 reported installations according to popcon stats, I don't >>>> think that upgrade issues are that important. I agree. >>>> So the only valid argument are playing nicely with Ubuntu, Well, that's not a priority for me, others may feel differently... >>>> and aligning the package names with what is done with Tomcat. That was not a carefully planned decision AFAIK, it was forced because we needed to package (parts of) Tomcat 6 while Tomcat 5 was still in the archive. >>>> Thierry Carrez a écrit : >>>>> 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. >>>>> 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. Except that there is no "phasing out" as Jetty 5 is RC-buggy and will have to be removed immediately (since it is almost certain that it won't become releasable again). Cheers, Marcus -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iEYEARECAAYFAkpnc3YACgkQXjXn6TzcAQlU+QCdHCGYtrXfYu/bBhytPoLN4tyE ItoAoPoVqS0WR8jmu3VtrJZfq5zt05In =lGhV -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ pkg-java-maintainers mailing list [email protected] http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-java-maintainers
