On Mon, 2003-01-20 at 14:48, Adam Heath wrote:
> On 20 Jan 2003, Joe Phillips wrote:
> > <lightbulb> Are you saying that the non-tomcat binary releases are
> > configured for jetty? </lightbulb> If so, I was not aware of that. I
> > figured they were jboss without any web containers. I'll need to look
> > into this.
>
> er, EEK! You're building from a binary release? BAD BAD
I know I know, that was *only* in the name of expediency in getting *a*
package. Future packages *will* be built from source, at least my 3.2+
packages will - I'm still debating on a 3.0.5 package.
> > > Tomcat is an optional extra and really should be presented that
> > > way. Alternately you should have a jboss-jetty deb that is
> > > the default webcontainer for jboss, which may be replaced by
> > > jboss-tomcat.
> >
> > At some point I would like to clean up the way this is built. I
> > certainly want to have jetty packages and be flexible enough to
> > add/remove tomcat and jetty.
>
> I also had postgress/mysql/hsql packages, all could be deployed at once,
> and used alternatives to select the prefered one.
good idea.
> > These things will grow and improve over time. Some of your comments are
> > leading me toward a re-organization of the jboss install directories
> > which I touched on in a previous email.
>
> /usr/share/jboss/....
got it.
> /var/lib/jboss/....
what's this for? I guess I'll find out when I poke through your
packages (later this week).
> /var/cache/jboss/....
got it.
> To make my packages work in debian, I had to fork the old tomcat 3.2.3, as
> when I made them, tomcat 3.x had just come out, which didn't work with jboss.
Yeah, I *really* want to minimise code changes. Some of the changes I'm
starting to think we need, I doubt will be made upstream. Yuk!
-joe
--
Innovation Software Group, LLC - http://www.innovationsw.com/
Business Automation Specialists
UNIX, Linux and Java Training
