[Debian-on-mobile-maintainers] Debian NEW: automated review of nemo-qml-plugin-dbus 2.1.39+dfsg-3

[dfsg-team at debian.org]

Hi,

Your upload of nemo-qml-plugin-dbus 2.1.39+dfsg-3 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, 1 important, 2 minor issues:

  - [important] [packaging] The .orig tarball contains an obsolete Debian debian/ directory from the 2.1.24-1 packaging, not only upstream source
  - [minor] [packaging] The 2.1.39+dfsg-3 changelog entry calls itself an initial release twice and mixes unrelated changes
  - [minor] [packaging] Build-Depends names dh-sequence-pkgkde-symbolshelper, but there is no symbols file for libnemodbus1

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/zde9J8gbO3dhGkiDCtP9NY7kSfegrbz6

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!