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. My mail was part quick review for things you might want to look at and part advertisment for the check-all-the-things tool :) > 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 > 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 > Again I intend to be the maintainer, not upstream :-P (And the package > has been around in its current state for 16 years.) I'll forward your > remarks upstream though. Part of the package maintainer's job is to forward patches, bug reports and feedback upstream, so thanks for doing that :) https://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/developers-reference/ch03.en.html#upstream-coordination -- bye, pabs https://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise
