Re: css-validator ready for review and sponsorship
Le jeudi 2 octobre 2025 13:21:28 CEST, vous avez écrit :
> On 06/07/2025 19:46, Fab Stz wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I believe the package for css-validator is ready for review and sponsorship.
> > Could someone please have a look?
> >
> > https://salsa.debian.org/bastif/css-validator/
>
> I got a look at the package, here are my observations:
>
> * the orig tarball generated by uscan is named
> css-validator_20250226+dfsg.orig.tar.xz, it's missing the 0~ prefix
Fixed.
> * I would not bother to support jetty9 and tomcat10 since these packages
> are going to be removed in the near future. What about keeping only
> tomcat11 and jetty12 support?
Right now for tomcat10 & tomcat11 it would be nice if [1] was fixed. That way we don't need the workaround in css-validator.
Concerning jetty12 it is just not usable in its current state. See [2] & [3]
[1] https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1108280
[2] https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1108370
[3] https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1108253
So for now we could keep all of them. When jetty9 & tomcat10 are really removed from the archive, they could be removed in css-validator.
There is also some information in debian/README.TODO
> * Instead of removing the external images in
> debian-cleanup-privacy-breach*.patch, they could be copied into the
> package to avoid broken images on the pages
The patch are designed in a way that there will be no broken image. The "alt" label of the image is always displayed instead.
The problem with including a copy of the image is that we don't know their licenses, and W3C has some special licenses with regard to images. For example the "valid *" images are not allowed to be distributed, and the W3C logo also has some limitations. It's difficult to know what the state of these pictures would be.
> It looks great overall, well done. The CLI is a bit weird, it doesn't
> accept file paths (only URLs, file: works) and outputs an obscure
> UnknownHostException error, but that's an upstream issue.
Have you properly formatted the "file URL"? I don't recall having seen such an issue when properly formatted (ie. don't use file://hostname/file..).
In the manpage I wrote:
URL
URL can either represent a distant web resource (https://) or a local file (file:/).
For relative path use file:relative/path/to/my_style_sheet.css.
For absolute path use file:/absolute/path/to/my_style_sheet.css.
Thanks for the review. BTW I believe https://salsa.debian.org/bastif/salvation is also ready for review & upload.
Fab
Reply to: