On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 2:39 AM, Torsten Werner<[email protected]> wrote: > On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 11:03 PM, Thierry > Carrez<[email protected]> wrote: >> 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. > > Renaming the package to jetty6 makes it more flexible (even if we > might not need the flexibility currently). That is why I am in the > jetty6 camp now. Should I ask the ftp-masters to reject the current > jetty upload? I am willing to upload a jetty6 package.
I agree with Marcus here. There are not very convincing reasons for the package rename. How many rdepends are there for current version of jetty? If there are not many and those which are can be migrated easily then I don't see a need of source package rename. Onkar _______________________________________________ pkg-java-maintainers mailing list [email protected] http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-java-maintainers
