Marc Haber dijo [Wed, Aug 12, 2026 at 01:35:14PM +0200]:
On Tue, Aug 11, 2026 at 07:49:23PM -0600, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
FWIW I agree with you using an LLM to prepare an NMU — and then
_double-checking a full diff_, and becoming _personally_ responsible for
any breakage it introduces.
I'd like to know what it means for you to be "personally responsible".
I have broken key packages more than once without using an LLM, would
I face other consequences if I broke key packagees with an LLM
assisted contribution, any if yes, why?
Well, Debian is after all a volunteer-driven project, where we do not
have the power to send you to jail to think on what you did wrong. But
I suppose you broke said key packages out of a mistake, and promptly
corrected them.
I think you felt personally responsible, and acted as quickly as
possible to (probably mistranslating from a Spanish expression) “get
your foot out of the hole”.
It was not just that you found a bug in random code: you found (I have
also done so, many times) a mistake in a contribution you made. And
you felt it was necessary for you to fix the error.
I have denied requests from potential contributors for me to sponsor
their packages, because I am not familiar enough with the language /
tooling they use, and they are unable to take direct responsibility in
Debian: *I* would be responsible for whatever mistakes my upload would
introduce.
I would expect any DD uploading LLM-generated or LLM-assisted
packaging to be as dilligent with that as with any other packaging
they do.
We should be able to use whatever tools we can, but whatever goes in the
distribution signed by [email protected] is _my sole responsibility_, and I
cannot point fingers at any LLM for doing something wrong.
That's, in my opinion, how Debian works today. Even when I sponsor a
package from a newcomer, I take some responsibility for that, and
that's the reason why I don't enjoy sponsoring packages that don't use
Salsa CI.
Precisely.
