[Debian-on-mobile-maintainers] Debian NEW: automated review of nemo-qml-plugin-dbus 2.1.39-1

[dfsg-team at debian.org]

Hi,

Your upload of nemo-qml-plugin-dbus 2.1.39-1 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, 4 important, 5 minor issues:

  - [important] [licensing] doc/ is offered under GFDL-1.3 but debian/copyright covers it with the BSD-3-clause Files: * stanza
  - [important] [licensing] Files: tests/* says LGPL-2.1 but tests/auto/tst_dbus.qml grants BSD-3-clause
  - [important] [packaging] Development package is nemo-qml-plugin-dbus-dev, not libnemodbus-dev as Policy 8.4 requires
  - [important] [packaging] nemo-qml-plugin-dbus-dev does not depend on qt6-base-dev although its installed headers include QtDBus headers
  - [minor] [packaging] qml6-module-nemo-qml-plugin-dbus is Section: libdevel; QML runtime modules belong in libs
  - [minor] [packaging] Stale Qt5-era and abandoned dev-package files left under debian/old/ and debian/libnemodbus-dev/
  - [minor] [packaging] changelog says 'Initial release' twice in 2.1.39-1 and re-closes #1022917, already closed in 2.1.30-1
  - [minor] [packaging] No autopkgtest, and the upstream tests the package ships cannot be built or run
  - [minor] [packaging] dh-sequence-pkgkde-symbolshelper is a build-dependency with no symbols file to act on

You can read the full review here:

    https://dfsg-new-queue.debian.org/reviews/nemo-qml-plugin-dbus#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/4VxkDH-JjD63tUjNyFyps8RgGXReaLoP

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!