LLM Usage in Debian: Three Proposals

Interesting that this makes no distinction from using LLM output and using LLM assistance. An overly strict policy is better than no policy, but I wonder if using llm for conversation and analysis, but not code/config generation, was discussed.

Re: LLM Usage in Debian: Three Proposals

#6

Post by ahofmann » Sat, Jul 25, 2026, 10:31 PM UTC

mt42or wrote: post #3

[flagged]

Are you aware, that a very big chunk of Linux distributions like Ubuntu are build in top of Debian?

Why do you want Debian to die?

Re: LLM Usage in Debian: Three Proposals

#7

Post by rixed » Sat, Jul 25, 2026, 10:40 PM UTC

  > Documentation and translations added by Debian contributors

I wonder what fraction of Trixie already violates this requirement of the first proposal...

Re: LLM Usage in Debian: Three Proposals

#8

Post by russfink » Sat, Jul 25, 2026, 10:43 PM UTC

What comprises “assistance?” Getting Claude Code to find bugs, suggest a fix, but a human actually editing the source files and testing the result - is that assistance? Perhaps this policy is as it says: a guiding principle that the community is expected to follow.

Re: LLM Usage in Debian: Three Proposals

#9

Post by dismalaf » Sat, Jul 25, 2026, 10:56 PM UTC

Curious what the "use" or "assistance" of LLM models means. I mostly use Gemini as a front-end to search Google without getting ads or SEO garbage, would that be forbidden?

Re: LLM Usage in Debian: Three Proposals

#10

Post by carterschonwald » Sat, Jul 25, 2026, 11:06 PM UTC

i think the line is: expressing that you reputationally certify its correct and its worth the time