Enrico Zini wrote:
Can we design for where we could go, rather than adopt an LLMs to make it supposedly easier to stay where we are?
As Debian? I'm not quite as far on the too-many-barnacles-on-the-Debian-ship side as Joey is, but scraping them off needs to be a project goal — which it definitely is not.
Examples. You might remember the tag2upload infighting.While it's nice that most of Debian is on Salsa by now, exactly how many git archives there have (and use) pristine-tar branches (which may or may not be identical to a git checkout …) instead of being based on Upstream?
Back to the topic at hand.The DFSG team can use an automated SPDX checker, if everything in a package is SPDX'd, or they can use an LLM, or they can do the checking manually. What the team cannot do is require that every maintainer whose package lacks SPDX identifiers (in some/most/all/? files) sends a patch that adds them to Upstream.
Let's be honest here. Checking a package manually for whether every file has a non-SPDX copyright is brain-numbing busywork. You want the DFSG people to not use an LLM for that? then please do the work yourself: add SPDX markers to your package's files and file an upstream patch.
If you don't, IMHO you have no base whatsoever for complaining about LLM use.
-- -- regards -- -- Matthias Urlichs
OpenPGP_signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
