On Tue Oct 27, 2026 at 6:23 AM -05, Ludovic Courtès wrote: > Maybe now is the time to think about inclusion criteria that are more > stringent than just “anything that looks like free software”?
IMHO whether the software contains code written by an LLM is a red-herring. The software in question doesn't have many users and consequently isn't packaged by most distros. According to repology only Guix packages it[0]. Personally I feel that Guix still is lacking many packages. As other's mention it would be good to have an objective criteria. My concrete proposal would be that for new software we use whether it is packaged by another distro☨. In the PR checklist we can ask the submitter to link to another's distro package for the software as a proxy for proof of relevancy. This would only be a first order approximation. As software written in Scheme and targeting Guix (like toys) are commonly submitted to Guix for good reason but are unlikely to be packaged by other distros. So if a link can't be provided we ask the submitter to write a brief paragraph as to why should Guix package the software. This would be a subjective evaluation. But given that the common case would be taken care of I think we shouldn't let perfect be the enemy of the good. Cheers, Javier [0]: https://repology.org/project/maak/versions ☨: A exhaustive list should be agreed, my preference would be Gentoo, Debian, Fedora, Alpine and NixOS.
