jetty6 vs jetty as a package name

Onkar Shinde onkarshinde at ubuntu.com
Thu Jul 23 08:11:14 UTC 2009


On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 2:39 AM, Torsten Werner<twerner at debian.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 11:03 PM, Thierry
> Carrez<thierry.carrez at ubuntu.com> wrote:
>> 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.
>
> Renaming the package to jetty6 makes it more flexible (even if we
> might not need the flexibility currently). That is why I am in the
> jetty6 camp now. Should I ask the ftp-masters to reject the current
> jetty upload? I am willing to upload a jetty6 package.

I agree with Marcus here. There are not very convincing reasons for
the package rename.
How many rdepends are there for current version of jetty? If there are
not many and those which are can be migrated easily then I don't see a
need of source package rename.


Onkar



More information about the pkg-java-maintainers mailing list