October 8, 2026 at 8:02 AM, "Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution." <[email protected] mailto:[email protected]?to=%22Development%20of%20GNU%20Guix%20and%20the%20GNU%20System%20distribution.%22%20%3Cguix-devel%40gnu.org%3E > wrote:
> > October 5, 2026 at 9:08 AM, "Marius Bakke" <[email protected] > mailto:[email protected]?to=%22Marius%20Bakke%22%20%3Cmarius.andre.bakke%40gmail.com%3E > > wrote: > > > > > Hi Ludovic, all > > > > > > To me Goodev in its current form is a dead end > > > > I must say I'm rather disappointed by such a shallow dismissal. Is the > > current form without hwdb and builtins a "dead end"? > > > > You could have said that Guix can not accept something that's partly > > generated, and it would be _fine_, I can work with that. > > > > But when you, the Guix founder, declares it dead in the water that does > > not give much room for recourse. Obviously no one is going to touch it. > > > > That said... > > > > I would also like to apologise for barging in with a controversial > > project when tensions are this high. I should have humbly asked for > > help to replace the problematic bits instead of trying to impose a > > partially generated program on Guix users. > > > An apology is necessary! Jesus never preached about the evil's of LLMs... I mean to write that an apologize was not necessary. My bad. > Thanks for giving the community another udev option! And your decision > to remove the LLM generated code certainly should make your project > acceptable to guix. Though it sounds like someone needs to write some > more code for goodev before it is merged into guix... > > I personally am ok with using LLMs to write code, even though most others are > not. :) > > Joshua >
