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". > 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. 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. ;) -- Eli Schwartz
OpenPGP_signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
