[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: FLOSS and servlets: recommendations

On Sun, 2006-08-06 at 17:08 +0100, MrDemeanour wrote:
> Andrew Vaughan wrote:
> > 
> > Debian stable is uh, stable.  Except for security bugs or other
> > serious bugs, it doesn't get updated.
> I see. I've read  Kraft's "Debian System" book several times, but I
> hadn't twigged that stable can't get packages added to it. So if I want
> to run Tomcat on main, than I need a machine tht isn't running Sarge.
> OK, thanks.
> > 
> > If you prefer tomcat4, why not just use the packages in contrib.
> > Everything in contrib is supposed to be free software.  It just has
> > build and/or runtime dependencies on non-free software.
> That was a bit of a throwaway; if I have to be non-free at all, I may as
> well go the whole hog, and run it on Windoze. I'm not up for compromises.

That is a pretty dumb statement, why would you want to move to Windows
just because you can't run a single piece of non-free software for a
while until a new Debian version is released?

> > 
> > If you want to use debian's Tomcat5 packages, then a quick look at
> > the dependencies suggest that a mixed sarge/etch system is probably
> > ok iff you're prepared to run a Sun/IBM jre/jdk.
> Yup. See above. If it's not free, then I don't really see the point of
> struggling with it atg all.
> > You could also create an etch chroot and run Tomcat from there.
> I know what chroot is supposed to do; but I'm no linux guru, and I don't
> yet understand how I can use chroot to isolate etch from a system that
> thinks it's Sarge. I'll have to look into that.
> >> Is there some place I can keep up-to-date on what is going on with 
> >> Tomcat 5.5 in Etch?
> >> 
> > You could subscribe to the individual packages at 
> > http://packages.qa.debian.org/t/tomcat5.html 
> > http://packages.qa.debian.org/t/tomcat5.5.html
> Yah. My mailbox will complain - those tend to generate bot traffic. I
> meant human-originated stuff.
> [snippage]
> > Jetty is in contrib (unstable only).  A quick look shows no obvious
> > reason why it couldn't be moved to main, so it may still be in
> > contrib purely because no-ones gotten around to moving it.  (It
> > build-depends on ant, which was in contrib when Jetty was first
> > uploaded.)
> Java stuff tends to depend on ant; I read something that seemed to say
> that ant was licence-dodgy, at some point in time. Pages need timestamps!

That is also false, Ant has always been under the Apache Software
License which has always been Debian-compliant.



Reply to: