jetty6 vs jetty as a package name

[Ludovic Claude]

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.

Ludovic


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