Am Mi., 11. März 2026 um 04:59 Uhr schrieb Eli Schwartz <[email protected]>: > > On 3/10/26 10:25 PM, Kai Krakow wrote: > > > What about code running Gentoo infrastructure? Or Gentoo tooling? > > What's the scope of the AI policy regarding "contribution to Gentoo"? > > Today, many packages have deep dependencies. It will be hard to avoid > > code which has AI assisted code involved. The text from the wiki > > doesn't really explain that to me: > > > >> This policy affects Gentoo contributions and the official Gentoo projects. > >> It does not prohibit adding packages for AI-related software or software > >> that is being developed with the help of such tools upstream. > > > > Yes, it says I can add packages to Gentoo which are about AI, or which > > are developed using AI. Fine. That's easy. But a contribution to > > Gentoo infrastructure goes deeper as such code becomes part of Gentoo > > tooling and/or infrastructure and is no longer just a random package. > > > Repositories hosted on: > > https://gitweb.gentoo.org > > and often mirrored to > > https://codeberg.org/gentoo > https://github.com/gentoo > > are official gentoo projects. That includes the gitweb projects under > infra/ and proj/, so, contribution to official Gentoo infra / tooling > run by infra. > > Such repos cannot include content "created with the assistance of" an > LLM. Patches to code or artwork are "content", commit messages are > "content".
Thanks. This definition helps a lot. > > Again, I don't want to say the rule is useless. I want to understand > > it to act properly and *not* violate it. > > > > With that in mind, at least chardet is part of the infrastructure and > > tooling, isn't it? > > > Dependencies aren't official Gentoo projects (unless said dependencies > are also hosted by Gentoo ;)) so depending on chardet wouldn't violate > Council policy. Unless someone proposes to contribute "the chardet > project" itself to the Gentoo Foundation. This also helps a lot and completes the picture for me. > Developers of specific Gentoo projects might say chardet's mother was a > hamster, and its father smelt of elderberries. But that's not enforced > by Council policy, and would need negotiation with said devs. > > > > But I'm not sure if that should be discussed further here, and I'm > > fine with leaving it as an open question to discuss somewhere else. > > And I'm fine with being extra careful with getting involved in any > > core tooling just to avoid violating any policy, and only contribute > > when the policy applies a clearly defined scope, e.g. just > > contributing ebuilds. > > > ... or only contribute LLM-free proposals, since LLM-free contributions > are compliant with the policy if it *does* apply, and cause no issues if > it *doesn't* apply. ;) That's a logical consequence if code is actually my own creation. But I cannot be so sure about code I include from other sources (be it vendoring some dependency, or copying a useful function from another open source project with a compatible license, where "vendoring" is something to avoid anyways, I don't mean to advertise vendoring here, and I don't mean to copy code without proper attribution). The definition aboves helps to narrow down when *not* to use code from other sources. Thanks again, I think this answered at least all *my* questions for now. Regards, Kai
