On 2026-05-29, Sergio Pastor Pérez wrote: > Andreas Enge <[email protected]> writes: >> Am Thu, May 28, 2026 at 11:06:22PM +0900 schrieb Maxim Cournoyer: >>> "cannot be considered free software" is preposterous, no? We have >>> doubts, but no certainty as of now. For our own source code, it seems >>> wise to avoid the uncertainty creeping in, but for packages... I think >>> given the gray area, and the low risk of it (we can easily remove such >>> packages if/when it becomes clear that they aren't free software) >> >> This is a claim that I think is not correct. In a sense, we can only go >> forward. Of course *theoretically*, we can take out any package; but >> things become complicated as soon as dependents enter the game (and it >> has taken a bit of effort to work on the question for GCD 006, and each >> and every package removal means additional work). And also think of >> updates - the vibe coding could happen between version X-1 and version X >> of a package. It may be very difficult to downgrade (already our user >> tools are not designed for this). >> >> Just imagine that we decided we wanted to roll back the Python 3.11 to >> 3.12 transition - I think it is close to impossible. > > If this is a real concern, I think this pledge needs to add a special > exception for high impact packages based on number of dependents. As far > as I understand, the original proposal was not trying to cover core > software that start to use LLM assistance. If it were the case that the > next Python, Rust, Linux, etc versions start to use LLMs in a way that > this pledge excludes them out of Guix, we should have some measure to > not even need to discuss that we need this packages. As you say, it's > not reasonable to drop, for example, Python. So, to avoid any > subjectivity, we could add a clear numeric hard-line.
Package dependents is a suprisingly small number for Linux(-libre), so possibly not the metric you are looking for... live well, vagrant
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
