When I searched for "powerpc64 delay slot" today, the SearchAssist
bubble on DuckDuckGo called delay slots are a "feature" on PowerPC. The
full text is at the bottom of this message.
Personally, I remain uncertain because sample code in a presentation
from 2014 has 'nop' instructions after the 'bl' instructions. [3] Does
the PowerPC architecture have delay slots, please?
Please copy me on your reply. I do not subscribe to this list. Thanks!
[ Cc d-project, as this was missuse of resources ]When you escalate something like this, it feels like you are trying to
On Wed, Jan 14, 2026 at 08:30:12AM +0100, Bastian Blank wrote:Very well said, thanks Terceiro <3
[ Cc d-project, as this was missuse of resources ]
When you escalate something like this, it feels like you are trying to publicly shame the OP to a larger audience, because you disagree with something that they did or said. We clearly have two sides of the "AI"
fence, and I suspect I'm on the same side as you. But this won't be
solved by yelling "shame on you" to the people on the other side.
If you feel that you don't have the time or energy to deal with whatever
you consider bullshit, just ignore the message, or maybe just don't
followup immediately and let others who are having a better day deal
with it. For example, 2 other people already followed up on
debian-powerpc with more useful answers, and without the judgement that
you added.
On Wed, Jan 14, 2026 at 08:30:12AM +0100, Bastian Blank wrote:
[ Cc d-project, as this was missuse of resources ]
When you escalate something like this, it feels like you are trying to publicly shame the OP to a larger audience, because you disagree with something that they did or said. We clearly have two sides of the "AI"
fence, and I suspect I'm on the same side as you. But this won't be
solved by yelling "shame on you" to the people on the other side.
Antonio Terceiro <terceiro@debian.org> writes:
sorry for adding to the offtopic noise, but i am glad someone stood up
for a more grown-up culture
and also, the OP was asking a question of humans to check and
understand
the output of AI. this is hardly something to discourage.
IMO it's high time we had a GR banning so-called AI (read LLMs) at the very least for project contributions, and I would suggest just to ignore mail
that looks like it was written by a machine in the meantime.
[?]
2/ Most of my personal Free Software contributions over the last year
have been AI-assisted to some degree. Usually that degree is that I let
the agent write an initial version of the code, and then I review it,
Le jeudi 15 janvier 2026, 15:46:02 heure normale d?Europe centrale Lucas Nussbaum a ‚crit :
[?]
2/ Most of my personal Free Software contributions over the last year
have been AI-assisted to some degree. Usually that degree is that I let
the agent write an initial version of the code, and then I review it,
?Review?: How do you know the code that was produced is not a verbatim of
a code under an incompatible licence?
?Review?: How do you know the code that was produced is not a verbatim ofOn a related note, the Open Regulatory Compliance Working Group is
a code under an incompatible licence?
[?]
If you haven't already, I would recommend getting first hand experience
with LLM-assisted coding. Using it to modify existing code is very
different from using it to do "Vibe coding", where you generate large
amounts of code without even reading it.
In general the code produced by the LLM is very specific to the context :
- the existing code being modified
- the technologies in use and the general context (Debian)
- the change being asked
And it's also mostly about incremental modifications to a codebase.
So the amount of lines added at a time is low. It's almost never about
adding many lines of code from (likely) the same source. It's more like copy-pasting three different 2-lines snippets from documentations or stackoverflow, adjusting them to your context, and assembling them
together, except the LLM does it for you.
I think one thing that people often forget is that you cannot hold an
LLM accountable if anything breaks. If a human makes some kind of
mistake in the code and someone points it out, the person can easily
recall the steps he has done, discuss with the others and fix the bug.
1/ Back in June I volunteered to explore if we could get AI companies to sponsor Debian with LLM access (for Debian development). This went
nowhere so far, unfortunately, but several DDs contacted me privately
(for example during DebConf) to express interest. So clearly some DDs
think that AI-assisted contributions are worth exploring in the context
of Debian.
2/ Most of my personal Free Software contributions over the last year
have been AI-assisted to some degree. Usually that degree is that I let
the agent write an initial version of the code, and then I review it,
and then either rework it manually or prompt the agent to rework it until
it matches my expectations, or a mix of both. When they were
contributions to projects where I don't consider myself the maintainer,
I think I was always clear that the contributions were AI-assisted.
My feeling is that contributing that way made me produce more and in a
more interesting way, because I was able to focus more on what the code achieves, than on not-so-interesting implementation details. Also it
makes addressing boring bugs in legacy code a bit more fun.
So if Debian had a policy of banning AI-assisted contributions, I would probably just decide to contribute elsewhere.
- If it's about non-free tools, what about bug reports generated by
services such as Coverity Scan?
- if it's about environmental impact, what about large-scale QA checks
and CI?
Le jeudi 15 janvier 2026, 17:02:05 heure normale d?Europe centrale Lucas Nussbaum a ‚crit :
[?]
If you haven't already, I would recommend getting first hand experience with LLM-assisted coding. Using it to modify existing code is very different from using it to do "Vibe coding", where you generate large amounts of code without even reading it.
Okay, but you said:
?I let the agent write an initial version of the code, and then I review
it.?
?Initial version,? even if that?s not ?pure vibe coding,? it very much
smells like it.
Nonetheless, if you ask the tool to add a function to one of your files? maybe it?s incremental? but maybe it?s just regurgitating almost verbatim someone else?s code (changing their tab indentation and camel case
notation to your code?s 4-space indentation and snake case).
Maybe you won?t agree on ?regurgitating,? maybe you?d call that ?reinventing?? but if a human studied a lot of codes (and was known to
have done that) and managed to write a (non-trivial) function exactly as
it was in that corpus (modulo cosmestics), they would be suspected of plagiarism.
2. In any case, and more importantly, most of these tools have been
trained on other people?s work, regardless (and stripping them) of their copyrights and licences. They are poisoned.
Please be aware that your statement implies that you already willingly
violated Debian policies: You added code that you most likely do not hav
a valid, DFSG-compatible license for, and cannot correctly attribute in
d/copyright.
So, if you think the existing policies are worth nothing and you are not
willing to comply with them, then yes, contributing somewhere els
instead sounds like a reasonable idea.
Hi,
1/ Back in June I volunteered to explore if we could get AI companies to sponsor Debian with LLM access (for Debian development). This went
nowhere so far, unfortunately, but several DDs contacted me privately
(for example during DebConf) to express interest. So clearly some DDs
think that AI-assisted contributions are worth exploring in the context
of Debian.
There are also some DDs who think that GitHub is a great platform to host their source package repos, or to let telemetry activated in their packages, and so on. That some DDs think that something is good doesn't actually mean it *is* good.
2/ Most of my personal Free Software contributions over the last year
have been AI-assisted to some degree. Usually that degree is that I let
the agent write an initial version of the code, and then I review it,
and then either rework it manually or prompt the agent to rework it until it matches my expectations, or a mix of both. When they were
contributions to projects where I don't consider myself the maintainer,
I think I was always clear that the contributions were AI-assisted.
My feeling is that contributing that way made me produce more and in a
more interesting way, because I was able to focus more on what the code achieves, than on not-so-interesting implementation details. Also it
makes addressing boring bugs in legacy code a bit more fun.
So if Debian had a policy of banning AI-assisted contributions, I would probably just decide to contribute elsewhere.
Please be aware that your statement implies that you already willingly violated Debian policies: You added code that you most likely do not hav a valid, DFSG-compatible license for, and cannot correctly attribute in d/copyright.
So, if you think the existing policies are worth nothing and you are not willing to comply with them, then yes, contributing somewhere els instead sounds like a reasonable idea.
Uploads of src:linux since 6.15 fulfill this:I do actually think that. However, I obviously have no idea what to do afterwards, because there is no replacement for the Linux kernel.
+---
| [A patch] that was merged for the 6.15 release. That patch was
| entirely written by an LLM, changelog included.
+---[ https://lwn.net/Articles/1026558/ ]
So, if you think the existing policies are worth nothing and you are not
willing to comply with them, then yes, contributing somewhere els
instead sounds like a reasonable idea.
Do you think all src:linux maintainers should leave the project and we
should revert to a pre-6.15 kernel (or even earlier)? And what about
other packages? Please don't assume src:linux is the only package with LLM-generated contributions.
So, if you think the existing policies are worth nothing and you are not willing to comply with them, then yes, contributing somewhere els instead sounds like a reasonable idea.
| Sysop: | Jacob Catayoc |
|---|---|
| Location: | Pasay City, Metro Manila, Philippines |
| Users: | 5 |
| Nodes: | 4 (0 / 4) |
| Uptime: | 19:04:58 |
| Calls: | 117 |
| Calls today: | 117 |
| Files: | 367 |
| D/L today: |
546 files (254M bytes) |
| Messages: | 70,845 |
| Posted today: | 26 |