Hi Mark,

Am Mon, Nov 17, 2025 at 11:19:38AM +0000 schrieb Mark Hindley:
> There is certainly inconsistency, but there appear to be more recent versions
> now:
>

>  tomcat9 | 9.0.43-2~deb11u10 | bullseye          | source, all
>  tomcat9 | 9.0.70-2          | bookworm          | source
>  tomcat9 | 9.0.95-1          | trixie            | source
>  tomcat9 | 9.0.107-0+deb11u1 | bullseye-security | source, all
>  tomcat9 | 9.0.111-1         | forky             | source
>  tomcat9 | 9.0.111-1         | sid               | source

Neither bookworm, nor trixie (and forky..) have a usable tomcat9
server package in their distribution. They supply only a single
library package from tomcat9 which is called "libtomcat9-java".

This package may be a dependency of some server application which
embeds a tomcat9 server but it can not be used as standalone running
tomcat 9 server.

The changes I made to the tomcat9 source for Devuan
only affect the standalone tomcat9 server, not the library.

We need to decide: Do we want to provide a full tomcat9 server in
daedalus, excalibur, freia?

If yes, we(I) need to "forward-port" the tomcat9 package we have in
chimaera. This is fine as long as security
updates are provided via bullseye-security. It will (at the moment)
lead to a situation were we have an older version of libtomcat9-java
in freia/ceres compared to forky/sid. However, I have no
resources to provide security fixes once bullseye is out of
maintenance.

If no, we even may decide to entirely drop our Devuan specific
tomcat9 source in bookworm or newer, since the Debian package
libtomcat9-java has no deps on systemd by itself and our
own rebuild of it would be identical to what is in Debian.

I have no favour regarding this decision, but I believe its
something to be decided by a bigger audience, not alone
by myself.

cheers,
Andreas

--
gnuPG keyid: 8C2BAF51
fingerprint: 28EE 8438 E688 D992 3661 C753 90B3 BAAA 8C2B AF51