jetty6 vs jetty as a package name

Wed Jul 22 15:23:24 UTC 2009

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 <konqueror at gmx.de> 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

> > pkg-java-maintainers at lists.alioth.debian.org

> > http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-java-maintainers

> >

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-java-maintainers/attachments/20090722/7609ae7c/attachment-0001.htm>