[DRE-maint] Debian NEW: automated review of ruby-rbs 4.2.0-1

[dfsg-team at debian.org]

Hi,

Your upload of ruby-rbs 4.2.0-1 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 2 blocker, 0 important, 2 minor issues:

  - [blocker] [licensing] Files: * does not name the holders of the stdlib signature files (Akinori Ito, Network Applied Communication Laboratory, Information-technology Promotion Agency Japan, akira yamada, Minero Aoki)
  - [blocker] [licensing] stdlib/pty/0/pty.rbs carries a permission notice that is neither BSD-2-clause nor the Ruby licence, but debian/copyright puts it under `License: BSD-2-clause or Ruby`
  - [minor] [licensing] Nine shipped files are generated from templates/ that the package does not contain
  - [minor] [packaging] autopkgtest only loads the library; the source tarball contains no upstream test suite

You can read the full review here:

    https://dfsg-new-queue.debian.org/reviews/ruby-rbs#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/xfpi4DPjSFSaFrCgV8w0MKQGxF89TKgS

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!