Hi,
Your upload of jpeg-xl 0.12.0-1~exp1 to the NEW queue has had an automated
review: an LLM-based check of its licensing and packaging, run by the DFSG team
using the Debian Inference service. It is not a decision on the package, and -
like other LLM-based work - it can be wrong.
It found 4 blocker, 0 important, 2 minor issues:
- [blocker] [licensing] Files: * claims the zlib-licensed APNG files are
BSD-3-clause-Google and omits Max Stepin's copyright
- [blocker] [licensing] third_party/ files are Apache-2.0 and MIT, not
BSD-3-clause-Google, and Wildfire Games is not named
- [blocker] [licensing] third_party/HEVCSoftware/cfg/LICENSE (BSD-3,
ITU/ISO/IEC) is not described and its holder is not named
- [blocker] [licensing] The ISC stanza names tools/ssimulacra.cc, but the ISC
notice and holders are in tools/ssimulacra.txt
- [minor] [packaging] debian/control.in is stale and its regeneration rule
can never work (undefined @GCC_13_ARCHS@)
- [minor] [packaging] libjpegxl-java Depends uses ${java:Depends}, which
nothing in the source sets
You can read the full review here:
https://dfsg-new-queue.debian.org/reviews/jpeg-xl#assistant-report
Please look at it, and respond by visiting the link below (you'll be asked to
authenticate with Salsa first):
https://dfsg-new-queue.debian.org/llm-review/qDN4hhkzE-OYfIN2gaOog5HAPB3shG9Z
There you may choose to reject the upload yourself, while you fix issues and
re-upload, or add comments to clarify or dispute the review.
Your comments are for the DFSG team member who reviews the package, not for the
LLM: it will not read them or reply. Tell the reviewer where you think the
automated review is right or wrong, and why. Comments are public and shown with
the review; you may use markdown, e.g. to link to clarifying information.
If you have any questions, please reply to this e-mail and someone from the
team will respond.
If you would rather not be e-mailed about these reviews, log in at
https://dfsg-new-queue.debian.org
and say so on your profile page.
Thanks!
