Hi Matthias, while I respect that you have principles that lead you to reject LLM contribution, for the purposes of this vote, things like this don't help:
On 2026-08-11 19:57, Matthias Geiger wrote: > Lintian complaining that a package has no watch file. An LLM might try > to "help" by writing a d/watch file. However, without context, this can > be totally wrong. Yes, and this was realized from the very beginning, resp. a design decision. LLM solutions have evolved substantially. The have been doing retrieval augmented generation, tool calling, and do lots of other things for many years now. To offer some anecdata, the results I'm getting from LLMs are generally high quality. > If the package has no VCS upstream or isn't developed > anymore, a watch file makes no sense. A seasoned contributor will know > that and ignore/override said warning; an LLM can't. Of course it can... Here's a simple dialog [1] with Kagi Assistant [2] for ISC cron. You can see the search queries it performed, the reasoning steps, and the conclusions. For cron, it generated a correct version 5 file pointing to isc.org, the original (and inactive) upstream. Our cron still has version 4 pointing to Salsa (because we maintain a fork), so it didn't just copy our code. One could argue "but it didn't find the fork", but I asked specifically for ISC cron (not Debian cron), and one of the searches included the Debian package specifically so it's not like it missed something. Again, I do wish to respect other people's principles and decisions. But we need to have an informed vote, and for that we need to get the facts straight. Best, Christian [1]: https://assistant.kagi.com/share/d6c4e3fe-639d-4a5d-ad29-0e20df0a8ae4
