[gentoo-dev] Last rites: dev-python/nose

2024-02-27 Thread Michał Górny
# Michał Górny (2024-02-28) # Nosetests have been abandoned in 2015.  Upstream (while technically # still around) has refused to accept any patches since, and we have # already had to fork it, to keep it somewhat working.  All # the remaining reverse dependencies were finally ported or last

[gentoo-dev] Last rites: app-misc/rmlint

2024-02-27 Thread Michał Górny
# Michał Górny (2024-02-28) # The project is not really actively maintained upstream, and it still # depends on dev-python/nose.  There are other tools with similar # functionality. # Removal on 2024-03-29.  Bug #878695. app-misc/rmlint -- Best regards, Michał Górny signature.asc

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: banning "AI"-backed (LLM/GPT/whatever) contributions to Gentoo

2024-02-27 Thread Michał Górny
On Tue, 2024-02-27 at 21:05 -0600, Oskari Pirhonen wrote: > What about cases where someone, say, doesn't have an excellent grasp of > English and decides to use, for example, ChatGPT to aid in writing > documentation/comments (not code) and puts a note somewhere explicitly > mentioning what was

Re: [gentoo-dev] Last rites: app-admin/salt, dev-python/pytest-salt-factories, dev-python/boto

2024-02-27 Thread Patrick McLean
The salt ebuild has been refactored to remove the tests and modules that require dev-python/boto, and the mask has been removed. Salt has a lot of users, and it would be doing them a disservice to remove it from the tree. On 2024-02-27 07:42, Michał Górny wrote: # Michał Górny (2024-02-27)

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: banning "AI"-backed (LLM/GPT/whatever) contributions to Gentoo

2024-02-27 Thread Oskari Pirhonen
On Tue, Feb 27, 2024 at 15:45:17 +0100, Michał Górny wrote: > Hello, > > Given the recent spread of the "AI" bubble, I think we really need to > look into formally addressing the related concerns. In my opinion, > at this point the only reasonable course of action would be to safely > ban

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: banning "AI"-backed (LLM/GPT/whatever) contributions to Gentoo

2024-02-27 Thread Eli Schwartz
On 2/27/24 9:45 AM, Michał Górny wrote: > Hello, > > Given the recent spread of the "AI" bubble, I think we really need to > look into formally addressing the related concerns. In my opinion, > at this point the only reasonable course of action would be to safely > ban "AI"-backed contribution

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: banning "AI"-backed (LLM/GPT/whatever) contributions to Gentoo

2024-02-27 Thread Peter Böhm
Am Dienstag, 27. Februar 2024, 18:50:15 CET schrieb Roy Bamford: > On 2024.02.27 14:45, Michał Górny wrote: > > Hello, > > > > [...] > > > > Gentoo has always stood out as something different, something that > > worked for people for whom mainstream distros were lacking. I think > > adding

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: banning "AI"-backed (LLM/GPT/whatever) contributions to Gentoo

2024-02-27 Thread Kenton Groombridge
On 24/02/27 07:07PM, Ulrich Mueller wrote: > > On Tue, 27 Feb 2024, Rich Freeman wrote: > > > On Tue, Feb 27, 2024 at 9:45 AM Michał Górny wrote: > >> > >> Given the recent spread of the "AI" bubble, I think we really need to > >> look into formally addressing the related concerns. > >

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: banning "AI"-backed (LLM/GPT/whatever) contributions to Gentoo

2024-02-27 Thread Ulrich Mueller
> On Tue, 27 Feb 2024, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Tue, Feb 27, 2024 at 9:45 AM Michał Górny wrote: >> >> Given the recent spread of the "AI" bubble, I think we really need to >> look into formally addressing the related concerns. First of all, I fully support mgorny's proposal. >> 1.

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: banning "AI"-backed (LLM/GPT/whatever) contributions to Gentoo

2024-02-27 Thread Sam James
Michał Górny writes: > Hello, > > Given the recent spread of the "AI" bubble, I think we really need to > look into formally addressing the related concerns. In my opinion, > at this point the only reasonable course of action would be to safely > ban "AI"-backed contribution entirely. In other

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: banning "AI"-backed (LLM/GPT/whatever) contributions to Gentoo

2024-02-27 Thread Roy Bamford
On 2024.02.27 14:45, Michał Górny wrote: > Hello, > > Given the recent spread of the "AI" bubble, I think we really need to > look into formally addressing the related concerns. In my opinion, > at this point the only reasonable course of action would be to safely > ban "AI"-backed contribution

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: banning "AI"-backed (LLM/GPT/whatever) contributions to Gentoo

2024-02-27 Thread Matthias Maier
On Tue, Feb 27, 2024, at 08:45 CST, Michał Górny wrote: > Given the recent spread of the "AI" bubble, I think we really need to > look into formally addressing the related concerns. In my opinion, > at this point the only reasonable course of action would be to safely > ban "AI"-backed

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: banning "AI"-backed (LLM/GPT/whatever) contributions to Gentoo

2024-02-27 Thread Rich Freeman
On Tue, Feb 27, 2024 at 9:45 AM Michał Górny wrote: > > Given the recent spread of the "AI" bubble, I think we really need to > look into formally addressing the related concerns. > 1. Copyright concerns. I do think it makes sense to consider some of this. However, I feel like the proposal is

Re: [gentoo-dev] 2024-02-26-debianutils-drops-installkernel-dep: add news item v2

2024-02-27 Thread Hank Leininger
On 2024-02-27, andrewammerlaan wrote: > Until recently, sys-apps/debianutils was in turn pulled in by > app-misc/ca-certificates, an essential package installed on many > systems. This is no longer the case.[2]. As a result many users may find > that sys-apps/debianutils and therefore

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: banning "AI"-backed (LLM/GPT/whatever) contributions to Gentoo

2024-02-27 Thread Ionen Wolkens
On Tue, Feb 27, 2024 at 03:45:17PM +0100, Michał Górny wrote: > Hello, > > Given the recent spread of the "AI" bubble, I think we really need to > look into formally addressing the related concerns. In my opinion, > at this point the only reasonable course of action would be to safely > ban

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: banning "AI"-backed (LLM/GPT/whatever) contributions to Gentoo

2024-02-27 Thread Andreas K. Huettel
Am Dienstag, 27. Februar 2024, 15:45:17 CET schrieb Michał Górny: > Hello, > > Given the recent spread of the "AI" bubble, I think we really need to > look into formally addressing the related concerns. In my opinion, > at this point the only reasonable course of action would be to safely > ban

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: banning "AI"-backed (LLM/GPT/whatever) contributions to Gentoo

2024-02-27 Thread Sam James
Marek Szuba writes: > On 2024-02-27 14:45, Michał Górny wrote: > >> In my opinion, at this point the only reasonable course of action >> would be to safely ban "AI"-backed contribution entirely. In other >> words, explicitly forbid people from using ChatGPT, Bard, GitHub >> Copilot, and so on,

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: banning "AI"-backed (LLM/GPT/whatever) contributions to Gentoo

2024-02-27 Thread Marek Szuba
On 2024-02-27 14:45, Michał Górny wrote: In my opinion, at this point the only reasonable course of action would be to safely ban "AI"-backed contribution entirely. In other words, explicitly forbid people from using ChatGPT, Bard, GitHub Copilot, and so on, to create ebuilds, code,

[gentoo-dev] Last rites: app-admin/salt, dev-python/pytest-salt-factories, dev-python/boto

2024-02-27 Thread Michał Górny
# Michał Górny (2024-02-27) # dev-python/boto is dead, with last release in 2018.  It has been # replaced by dev-python/boto3.  It carries a ton of patches and still # depends on dev-python/nose. # # app-admin/salt is its only remaining reverse dependency.  The ebuild # is of very low quality. #

[gentoo-dev] Last rites: app-misc/binwalk

2024-02-27 Thread Michał Górny
# Michał Górny (2024-02-27) # Unmaintained upstream.  Already carries a few patches. # Depends on dev-python/nose. # Removal on 2024-03-28.  Bug #878693. app-misc/binwalk -- Best regards, Michał Górny signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: banning "AI"-backed (LLM/GPT/whatever) contributions to Gentoo

2024-02-27 Thread Alex Boag-Munroe
On Tue, 27 Feb 2024 at 15:21, Kenton Groombridge wrote: > > On 24/02/27 03:45PM, Michał Górny wrote: > > Hello, > > > > Given the recent spread of the "AI" bubble, I think we really need to > > look into formally addressing the related concerns. In my opinion, > > at this point the only

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: banning "AI"-backed (LLM/GPT/whatever) contributions to Gentoo

2024-02-27 Thread Kenton Groombridge
On 24/02/27 03:45PM, Michał Górny wrote: > Hello, > > Given the recent spread of the "AI" bubble, I think we really need to > look into formally addressing the related concerns. In my opinion, > at this point the only reasonable course of action would be to safely > ban "AI"-backed contribution

[gentoo-dev] Last rites: sci-biology/biopandas

2024-02-27 Thread Michał Górny
# Michał Górny (2024-02-27) # Still depends on dev-python/nose.  No reverse dependencies. # Removal on 2024-03-28.  Bug #878721. sci-biology/biopandas -- Best regards, Michał Górny signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part

[gentoo-dev] Last rites: sci-chemistry/nmrglue

2024-02-27 Thread Michał Górny
# Michał Górny (2024-02-27) # Effectively unmaintained in Gentoo.  Still depends on dev-python/nose, # on top of that tests are restricted, so we don't even know if it # works at all.  No reverse dependencies. # Removal on 2024-03-28.  Bug #878725. sci-chemistry/nmrglue -- Best regards, Michał

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: banning "AI"-backed (LLM/GPT/whatever) contributions to Gentoo

2024-02-27 Thread Arsen Arsenović
Michał Górny writes: > Hello, > > Given the recent spread of the "AI" bubble, I think we really need to > look into formally addressing the related concerns. In my opinion, > at this point the only reasonable course of action would be to safely > ban "AI"-backed contribution entirely. In other

[gentoo-dev] RFC: banning "AI"-backed (LLM/GPT/whatever) contributions to Gentoo

2024-02-27 Thread Michał Górny
Hello, Given the recent spread of the "AI" bubble, I think we really need to look into formally addressing the related concerns. In my opinion, at this point the only reasonable course of action would be to safely ban "AI"-backed contribution entirely. In other words, explicitly forbid people