Gunnar Wolf <[email protected]> writes: > Gard Spreemann dijo [Wed, Aug 12, 2026 at 10:17:35AM +0200]: >>> Claude is not a DD, it therefore cannot contribute directly to Debian. When >>> I >>> say "Claude, create a Debian package doing foo and set myself as a >>> Maintainer", >>> is that a direct contribution? >> >>Assuming that the software itself already exists upstream and that you >>are talking about its Debian packaging: Yes, this is in fact the >>archetype of the kind of contribution I had in mind. >> >>Assuming that you start from scratch and write the software itself using >>Claude, while doing the Debian packaging part as a human: This is indeed >>a loophole – the software itself is now an indirect contribution by >>virtue of being upstream. I would find it strange to attempt to forbid a >>DD from writing non-Debian software in whatever way they want. And >>strange to forbid *just* DD-written upstream software from entering >>Debian. So the loophole must remain. I do think people understand that >>exploiting this loophole would go against the spirit, if not the letter, >>of the GR if this option were adopted. > > What do you think about other software-written packaging? i.e. about > packages created by our usual dh-make-* tools? I have used them quite > a bit. Of course, I do take a look (and fill in with more data where > needed). I have even written one dh-make-*¹ tool several years ago; I > didn't use it much for Debian work IIRC, but had quite a large > deployment of debianized Drupal modules at a private apt repo. > > ¹ https://manpages.debian.org/testing/dh-make-drupal/dh-make-drupal.1.en.html > > Yes, it would be excessive to label dh-make-* as “rule-based expert > systems”, but to an extent... yes, it's a software-based shortcut that > saved me a lot of time filling in very repeatable packaging patterns.
I don't see these as anywhere near causing the same asymmetry in effort as AI tools. Maybe I'm being too simplistic in my thinking. Best, Gard
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
