jetty6 vs jetty as a package name

[Marcus Better]

-----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.

> 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.

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-----