On 26/10/26 at 14:12 +0000, Mathias Gibbens wrote: > But the review I > receive on the other side of the NEW process if a package is rejected > or maybe needs a slight touch-up should be succinct and to the point.
Hi, Right. Actually, the LLM could be prompted to generate such a shorter message. For example, I took https://dfsg-new-queue.debian.org/reviews/intel-ipsec-mb#assistant-report and generated this summary: ----------------- ## `intel-ipsec-mb` 3.0.1+dfsg-1 — DFSG NEW Review **Verdict:** DFSG-free, good packaging, but **`debian/copyright` is inaccurate**. **4 blockers** — `debian/copyright` omits 4 copyright holders: - **OpenSSL Project Authors** (~35 vendored files) - **Kitware, Inc.** (CMake files) - **Nokia** (1 test file) - **SUSE LLC** (RPM spec) **2 minor:** - Vendored OpenSSL built into library, undocumented for Debian - Internal `SHA3_*` symbols leaked into shared library **Fix:** Add missing copyright holders to unblock NEW. ----------------- Filed as https://salsa.debian.org/dfsg-team/dfsg-new-queue/-/work_items/57 Lucas
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
