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
