I believe it is too late to replace jetty9 in trixie as it has quite
some reverse dependencies. We prefer not to have multiple versions of
the same thing in a stable release. Why would we want to have jetty12 in trixie?
I agree it's too late for a full transition to Jetty 12, but several
packages only use jetty9 to run unit tests or for minor features. The
idea is to leave them as-is for Trixie, remove the jetty9 server
package but keep the libjetty9-java library.
I know it doesn't help anything to ask, but why wasn't this done before
the freezes?
- eclipse-equinox and eclipse-platform: the lack of jetty12 blocks the
upgrades, the packages lag 1.5 year behind upstream releases.
So your idea is to upgrade those packages now? That doesn't really sound
in line with the current freeze: "only small, targeted fixes are
appropriate for trixie."
- lucene9: Jetty is used for unit tests only (libjetty9-java should be
removed from the package dependencies)
Have bugs been filed already?
- trapperkeeper-webserver-jetty9-clojure: specific to Jetty 9, Puppet
hasn't upgraded Jetty yet and will stick to Jetty 9 in Trixie.
It doesn't require the server part I understand?
Allowing jetty12 in Trixie would enable us to have up to date Eclipse
packages and a recent and supported version of the Jetty server, on
par with the Tomcat package. The risk of regression is limited because
the full transition will not happen before Forky.
What is still left with for "full transition"?
Sysop: | Keyop |
---|---|
Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
Users: | 491 |
Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
Uptime: | 83:20:00 |
Calls: | 9,679 |
Calls today: | 3 |
Files: | 13,722 |
Messages: | 6,173,395 |
Posted today: | 3 |