Hi,
Your upload of jpeg-xl 0.12.0-1~exp2 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 0 blocker, 2 important, 2 minor issues:
- [important] [licensing] debian/copyright puts tools/example_tree2.txt under
Files: * (BSD-3-clause-Google, the JPEG XL Project) but the file is CC0 by Jon
Sneyers
- [important] [licensing] Overriding Files stanzas for apng.cc, dirent.cc and
ssimulacra.txt replace the JPEG XL Project's copyright and licence instead of
adding to them
- [minor] [packaging] Build-Depends requires libjxl-testdata >=
0.0~git20250513.73695d3-5, but only -4 is in the archive
- [minor] [packaging] autopkgtest compression-ratio check only prints on
failure and never fails the test
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/85-iZBX7SBO9t5mbKqsMsy5vD4baFS60
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!
