Hi Mattia, thanks a lot for pushing this ITP. On Sat, 2016-03-26 at 21:07 +0000, Mattia Rizzolo wrote: > On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 08:10:13AM +0100, Daniel Beyer wrote: > > * Package name : letsencrypt-sh > > Is there a good reason not to call this package 'letsencrypt.sh', with a > dot, as the official name? > No, there is no good reason for it. I wrongly thought a dot in a package name is not permitted. Let's name it letsencrypt.sh. > > Anyway, this email was to ask how it's going with this. Since I needed it, I made some initial packaging [1] on GitHub, which fit my needs right know. It of course need some more work to get it ready for Debian (e.g. it needs to be rebased against upstream's v0.1.0 and the repo should be moved to anonscm.d.o). > It should be a > fairly simple package, and I'm quite interested in it (can also sponsor > it or help to comaintain it, as you like, if you need it!). > I might have overcomplicated things a bit with the current packaging approach (e.g. providing apache configuration). You might want to take a look yourself and share your thoughts. If you're up for it, I gratefully would like to accept your offer to co-maintain this package. Additionally it might be worth to ask having it under the umbrella of Debian Let's Encrypt [2]. Let me know if you think we can base our work on what I've done so far, or if we instead should make a fresh start. Greetings Daniel [1] https://github.com/ymc/letsencrypt.sh [2] https://qa.debian.org/developer.php?login=letsencrypt-devel%40lists.alioth.debian.org
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part