Re: Ballot option: Debian is created by humans

Gard Spreemann dijo [Thu, Aug 13, 2026 at 12:17:29PM +0200]:
>> 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.

Maybe I'm being simplistic as well, but let me explain myself better
here.

If I am contributing something to Debian, it must be something I feel
to be _able_ to understand and feel responsible about. That is, if I
do a NMU, I must be able to understand (and defend!) its diff. If I
introduce a new package, I must understand the debianization delta
against upstream.

If I ask an LLM to package something for me, I should take a good,
critical dive into whatever it is proposing; lets say at the very
least with as much detail as a package I'm being asked to sponsor (or
more than that, as I cannot say the LLM has the “intent” of behaving
well and doing things right and up to the latest standards).

If I were to apply this guidelines to my work, would you accept my
LLM-generated, human-reviewed contributions?