Hi, John Scott! Thanks so much for your comments!
Actually your inspects are what I really need. ITP means intention to package, and my intention is weak. Someone in the group wants to this to be packaged and I tried to package it despite its young age. During my packaging https://salsa.debian.org/EiPiFun/rox-filer I realize some problems. First, the single maintainer and repo history. It is too young with only few tags and releases. Except for these, its release tags are kind of wired. 2.12.2-23, 2.12.2-27, 2.12.2.34, 2.12.2-89. -27,.34,-89,? It is harder to write a debian/watch for these. And no tests are defined. I also have a feeling that it may be a AI slop. As C is not the primary programming language by AI slops, thus I have some reservations before. > • The revision history is incomprehensible. There have only ever been > 35 commits and almost half of them are "update README". I forget to check the commit history, and I am more confident that this project is not primarily maintained by human. More problems are met in the process when I packaging. It does not have a clear build guide, and I have to manually select files to install. There is something specific wired: https://github.com/josejp2424/ROX-Filer2/tree/main/data/man . rox-find.1 is included in the source, but where is the rox-filer.1? Something seems to be wrong. That is the reason for short description. I am not the end user and I am in doubt about the project itself. > but this *looks* like AI slop at best, and a trojan horse for an > xz-style backdoor at worst. This is my major oversight. I trust projects in the first place, but this one may not be worthy. At last, thanks for your comments again! I will not upload it after getting your comments. This bug may be reserved for later reference, and the title may be changed. I admit my oversights and apologize for them. Best regards, EiPi Fun/Don Xu Sep 21, 2026
