Re: pkgsrc-wip: misc/DeepSeek-TUI renamed to misc/CodeWhale; editors/fresh 0.3.12

[Alistair Crooks <alistaircrooks%gmail.com@localhost>]

Think the attribution may be a bit awry (this is being mis-spelt on a phone, so difficult to read).

To clarify my personal opinion:

I think there are 2 main divisions of the whole known as pkgsrc:

1. The infrastructure (ie the stuff under mk/, doc/ and bootstrap/), and maybe the pkgtools/ category.  This should be LLM-free.

2. Everything else - not as important/essential/sacrosanct as the 1st division.

If you want to put comments in Makefiles or PLISTs, knock yourself out, but pkglint had better agree with this. I'd personally be annoyed if a change removed the comments.

I agree with your point about the best way to do things, and am fairly sure that's beyond the scope of LLMs rn.

This wasn't an attempt to direct policy, merely giving an idea of what my thoughts were, as I hadn't seen some points addressed.

I do think this discussion is important to have though, thanks to those who brought it up

Best,

Al

PS. Please excuse tyops and Small Language Model hallucinations from autocorrect.

On Sun, Jun 7, 2026 at 15:22 Greg Troxel <gdt%lexort.com@localhost> wrote:

Alistair Crooks <alistaircrooks%gmail.com@localhost> writes:

I don't see Makefiles as always below the threshold of copyright.  I
often write comments as why things are done is nonobvious (perhaps to
the chagrin of many, separate issue :-), and there's judgement about how
to do things.  Yes, some have almost no choices, but some do not.

> On reflection, maybe this is what everyone else is saying?

I'm not sure what you are trying to say in terms of what policy should
be.

  Is it that pkgsrc is basically either not worthy of copyright or taken
  from upstream, so there is no issue?

  Or is it that LLM use is broadly harmful and we should... ?