jetty6 vs jetty as a package name

[Ludovic Claude]

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

david.yu.ftw at gmail.com 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 <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
>>
>> >
>>