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

Bug#946750: RFS: opendkim/2.11.0~alpha-13 [ITA] -- Milter implementation of DomainKeys Identified Mail



Package: sponsorship-requests
Severity: normal

Dear mentors,

this is my first contribution to Debian. Please see my comments at the
bottom.

I am looking for a sponsor for my package "opendkim"

 * Package name    : opendkim
   Version         : 2.11.0~alpha-13
 * URL             : http://www.opendkim.org/
 * License         : Sendmail Open Source License (?)
 * Vcs             : None
   Section         : mail

It builds those binary packages:

  opendkim - Milter implementation of DomainKeys Identified Mail
  opendkim-tools - Set of command line tools for OpenDKIM
  libopendkim11 - Library for signing and verifying DomainKeys Identified Mail signatures
  libopendkim-dev - Headers and development libraries for the OpenDKIM library
  libvbr2 - Library for RFC 5518 Vouch By Reference (VBR)
  libvbr-dev - Headers and development libraries for the OpenDKIM VBR library
  librbl1 - Library to support a DKIM based RBL system
  librbl-dev - Headers/development libraries for the OpenDKIM RBL library

To access further information about this package, please visit the following URL:

  https://mentors.debian.net/package/opendkim

Alternatively, one can download the package with dget using this command:

  dget -x https://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/o/opendkim/opendkim_2.11.0~alpha-13.dsc

Changes since the last upload:

   * miltertest: Fix broken mt.data() function (Closes: #946386)
   * Set maintainer to David Bürgin, who intends to adopt the package

I intend to adopt the opendkim package, see #900774. I use OpenDKIM and
I think it is an important package.

This is my first contribution to Debian. It contains a very simple patch
(2 lines) to the miltertest program in the opendkim-tools package. It
should be easy to review, most important is probably that I got
everything right regarding the Debian packaging.

For the patch itself, some hints to understand the change:
- Look at the sequence of STATE_* definitions (lines 103–115)
- Understand how mt_assert_state() advances the state machinery *up to*
  some target state
- Understand how the patch corrects two mistaken uses of
  mt_assert_state() that pass the wrong state constant for the function
  that they are used in. Just glancing at the other uses above and below
  should hopefully  make it clear that the bug and fix are both trivial.

I hope that someone can sponsor this first contribution for me. Thank
you very much.

Cheers,
David

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: