Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
"FN" == Fernando Nasser fnasser@redhat.com writes:
FN> I'd like to keep the tomcat5 package around as well, as some FN> people may want to use the old version still. The packages have FN> versioned names so they can be installed in parallel. Would that FN> be OK?
I don't see why that would be a problem, although I'm not really sure of the implications of how the parallel installations would interact with initscripts. I guess since tomcat 5 uses "tomcat5" for its initscript there wouldn't be any conflict, but is there any point to running both versions at the same time?
The applications may need changes to run in a different version. Also there are some pre-packaged things that one does not know how to re-config but still wants to run. Last but not least, some bits are BuildRequires and tomcat6 has a different level of the APIs. I wanted to give people at least a release or two to adapt any dependnecies.
Also, I can't help but point out that we still really need someone from (one of) the Java team(s) to help us write some Java guidelines. Without guidelines, review tickets for Java packages have been piling up, and it's taken me a lot of time just to get answers to basic questions that have cropped up during a package review.
I ti snot the guidelines that are missing. Several Java-related stuff have been discussed over the last couple of years. Sometimes long and painful threads: ask Jess or Spot.
What we need is people to do the reviews. We only get volunteers when someone is interested in a package (two cases recently). But nobody seems to have the cycle and we cannot review the packages we own ourselves. We need to try and get together some folks for a concentrate effort like we did once.
Regards, Fernando