jetty6 vs jetty as a package name

[Thierry Carrez]

Marcus Better wrote:

> I have a hard time seeing the validity or relevance of any of the
> arguments for not sticking with the "jetty" package name.

Taking into account the fact that the current package is broken and
hardly used, I can see your point.

>> So the only valid argument are playing nicely with Ubuntu,
> 
> Well, that's not a priority for me, others may feel differently...

You should certainly not make the choice based on that.

>>> 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.

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. So it could make sense to clearly
separate it from its broken cousin ?

Cheers,

-- 
Thierry Carrez
Ubuntu server team