On Mon, 28 Sep 2015 at 11:37:39 +0200, Paul Wise wrote: > On Fri, Sep 25, 2015 at 9:26 PM, Guilhem Moulin wrote: >> not a reason for rejection > > Not being willing to sponsor the package isn't a rejection, just an > indicator that I don't have time for a proper initial review and > ongoing sponsorship. That's also what I understand since you wrote that upfront. Sorry if I sounded rude :-/ I was merely arguing in case a potential sponsor would wait for me to fix these before stepping forward ;-) > My mail was part quick review for things you might want to look at and > part advertisment for the check-all-the-things tool :) Yeah, many thanks for the review anyway. And as far as I'm concerned the advertisement is a success and I'll make sure to watch your talk from Debconf ;-) >> Done for the homepage and upstream/metadata. Thanks for the tips. >> (Unfortunately upstream currently doesn't tag their release nor provide >> tarballs, so the watchfile is useless right now since I don't know how >> to mangle the versions, right?) > > There is a versioned upstream tarball available on the author's > website, I assumed that was where you got your tarball from but I > guess you generated it from github somehow? > > http://trap.mtview.ca.us/~talby/ > http://trap.mtview.ca.us/~talby/netmask_2.4.tar.gz Yes indeed, I also found this tarball, but it's much older than github's 2.4.0. In particular IPv6 addresses are not supported. >> I serve git over (smart) HTTP. And well, the CA is valid, it just >> happen not to be in your CA store :-P > > Nor in any other default CA store ;-P Yeah the way #718434 is a pity IMHO :-/ Anyway that's why I intend to to switch to Let's Encrypt in two months. Cheers, -- Guilhem.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature