Le Tue, Oct 27, 2026 at 07:54:46AM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum a écrit :
> 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)
This are only blockers in the mind of the LLM, Debian policy does not
require to list all copyright holders, instead it says:
2.3. Copyright considerations
=============================
Every package must be accompanied by a verbatim copy of its
distribution license(s) in the file
"/usr/share/doc/PACKAGE/copyright".
The copyright information for files in a package must be copied
verbatim into "/usr/share/doc/PACKAGE/copyright", when all of the
following hold:
1. the distribution license for those files requires that copyright
information be included in all copies and/or binary distributions;
2. the files are shipped in the binary package, either in source or
compiled form; and
3. the form in which the files are present in the binary package does
not include a plain text version of their copyright notices.
Thus, the copyright information for files in the source package which
are only part of its build process, such as autotools files, need not
be included in "/usr/share/doc/PACKAGE/copyright", because those files
do not get installed into the binary package. Similarly, plain text
files which include their own copyright information and are installed
into the binary package unmodified need not have that copyright
information copied into "/usr/share/doc/PACKAGE/copyright"
So at least
> - **Kitware, Inc.** (CMake files)
> - **Nokia** (1 test file)
> - **SUSE LLC** (RPM spec)
are not blocker at all.
This LLM fundamentally misunderstand the purpose of debian/copyright.
There is no way it can give useful report about it.
Cheers,
--
Bill. <[email protected]>
Imagine a large red swirl here.
