On Thursday, October 29, 2026 3:51:15 PM Mountain Standard Time you wrote: > Le Tue, Oct 27, 2026 at 08:58:15PM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum a écrit : > > Since the DFSG team is using a tool to analyze packages at upload time > > anyway, I think that it makes sense to provide that report to > > maintainers, so that they can react without waiting for a human review, > > similarly to how maintainers react to CI results. > > > > I don't see the point in hiding those reports. If some maintainers > > prefer to wait until another human confirmed the diagnosis, that's fine, > > but why penalize those who welcome early feedback? > > Because this is not a feedback _from the project_. > > Developers will feel their packages will be rejected unless they > comply with the LLM demand, even though the LLM report is not in > accordance with Debian policy, and thus is arbitrary.
I have a hard time imagining someone thinking their submission would be rejected because of something invalid in the LLM report. It prominently contains this text: "It is not a decision on the package: it may be wrong, and it may have missed things.” In other words, if you disagree with anything in the report you can ignore it. You can also comment and explain why it is wrong. In my experience, the types of things it finds are the same types of questions I would ask if I were on the DFSG team and were manually reviewing a package. If you read over a number of these reviews you will see that many packagers find them helpful and often submit revised packages that address the valid items that were flagged. -- Soren Stoutner [email protected]
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
