jetty - mortbay jetty5 servlet-2.4 impl<br />jetty6 - mortbay jetty6 architectural change, done from scratch, servlet-2.5 impl<br />jetty7 - eclipse jetty7 (servlet-2.5 impl)<br />jetty8 - eclipse jetty8 (servlet-3.0 impl)<br /><br />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)<br />My 2C.<br /><br />Cheers<br /><br />On Jul 22, 2009 9:12pm, Michael Koch <konqueror@gmx.de> wrote:<br />> Hello,<br />> <br />> <br />> <br />> <br />> <br />> just to through my two cents into the ring...<br />> <br />> <br />> <br />> <br />> <br />> On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 12:21:45PM +0100, Ludovic Claude wrote:<br />> <br />> ><br />> <br />> > Hello Thierry,<br />> <br />> ><br />> <br />> > I have no preference between jetty and jetty6. I already renamed jetty6<br />> <br />> > to jetty after a suggestion from Marcus Better, I can reverse this<br />> <br />> > change easily.<br />> <br />> ><br />> <br />> > With only 14 reported installations according to popcon stats, I don't<br />> <br />> > think that upgrade issues are that important.<br />> <br />> > http://qa.debian.org/developer.php?popcon=jetty<br />> <br />> ><br />> <br />> > So the only valid argument are playing nicely with Ubuntu, and aligning<br />> <br />> > the package names with what is done with Tomcat.<br />> <br />> ><br />> <br />> > At this point, I think it's better to ask the Debian Java maintainers<br />> <br />> > for an opinion, I don't know what to do. My 'jetty' package has already<br />> <br />> > been sponsored by Torsten Werner, and it has been in the NEW queue for 8<br />> <br />> > days.<br />> <br />> <br />> <br />> In the past (long ago, I dont know the current status) Eclipse starting with<br />> <br />> version 3.3 or 3.4 depended on Jetty version 5.x. Jetty 6.x just was not<br />> <br />> compatible. That was a reason to name Jetty 6.x jetty6 and not use jetty<br />> <br />> as we needed/wanted both versions of Jetty in the archive.<br />> <br />> <br />> <br />> I dont know if this situation improved or if we should care at all about<br />> <br />> this now.<br />> <br />> <br />> <br />> <br />> <br />> Cheers,<br />> <br />> Michael<br />> <br />> <br />> <br />> <br />> <br />> > Thierry Carrez a écrit :<br />> <br />> > > Hello guys,<br />> <br />> > ><br />> <br />> > > I was wondering if you would reconsider the package naming for Jetty<br />> <br />> > > 6.1.19 in Debian (use "jetty6" instead of "jetty").<br />> <br />> > ><br />> <br />> > > The rationale behind this request is that jetty6 packaging, packagesplit<br />> <br />> > > and startup method evolved a lot since jetty5, sufficiently so that it's<br />> <br />> > > really a different package. You should expect some jetty5->jetty6<br />> <br />> > > upgrade problems if you do it as a regular jetty -> jetty package<br />> <br />> > > upgrade (for example, addition of a /etc/default/jetty file means that a<br />> <br />> > > jetty server that was starting will no longer start automatically after<br />> <br />> > > the upgrade.... until you edit NO_START in /etc/default/jetty). And<br />> <br />> > > there isn't so much value in trying to upgrade in place existing<br />> <br />> > > jetty(5) systems : their API level changes so webapps need review anyway.<br />> <br />> > ><br />> <br />> > >>>From an upstream point of view, David already made his point. Finally,<br />> <br />> > > from a "Debian Java world" point of view, this aligns jetty with Tomcat<br />> <br />> > > in terms of versioning / specsupport / packagename logic. It prepares<br />> <br />> > > future jetty7 as a separate package as well.<br />> <br />> > ><br />> <br />> > > The idea would be for Debian to ship both and then phase out the old one<br />> <br />> > > (like the nagios[23] migration) when the new one is proven.<br />> <br />> > ><br />> <br />> > > Of course, there is an Ubuntu-specific reason for me asking this :) I<br />> <br />> > > need Jetty 6 libraries in Ubuntu main for Eucalyptus, and there is no<br />> <br />> > > way a freshly-imported complex package from Debian experimental could<br />> <br />> > > make it into main so quickly. So my plan is to upload a "jetty6" package<br />> <br />> > > that would only build the libjetty-*-java libraries. It would be<br />> <br />> > > simpler, and not a replacement/upgrade over the "jetty" package.<br />> <br />> > ><br />> <br />> > > This would work a lot better if Debian was naming it the same : then I<br />> <br />> > > could let the Ubuntu "Debian merge" operate its magic on the next<br />> <br />> > > release when the Debian jetty6 reaches unstable, and get rid of the<br />> <br />> > > legacy jetty package sometime in the future like you would.<br />> <br />> > ><br />> <br />> > > Let me know what you think of that.<br />> <br />> > ><br />> <br />> ><br />> <br />> > Marcus Better a écrit :<br />> <br />> > Ludovic Claude wrote:<br />> <br />> > >> I am looking for a sponsor for my package "jetty6".<br />> <br />> > > Nice, it is badly needed.<br />> <br />> > >> The upload would fix these bugs: 425152, 454529, 458399, 498582, 527571,<br />> <br />> > >> 528389, 530720<br />> <br />> > > No it wouldn't. Those are filed against the "jetty" package which is<br />> <br />> > still<br />> <br />> > > in the archive. Your package is named "jetty6".<br />> <br />> > ><br />> <br />> > > Perhaps the best would be to use the existing package names, especially<br />> <br />> > > since the current jetty packages should be removed/replaced anyway and a<br />> <br />> > > removal will mean extra work.<br />> <br />> > ><br />> <br />> > > Cheers,<br />> <br />> > ><br />> <br />> > > Marcus<br />> <br />> ><br />> <br />> ><br />> <br />> > _______________________________________________<br />> <br />> > pkg-java-maintainers mailing list<br />> <br />> > pkg-java-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org<br />> <br />> > http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-java-maintainers<br />> <br />> ><br />>