Skip Quicknav
Blog
Micronews
Planet
Wiki
Debian Voting Information
/ 2026
/
General Resolution: LLM usage in Debian
Home
Home Vote Page
Home Vote Page
How To
Submit a Proposal
Amend a Proposal
Follow a Proposal
Submit a Proposal
Amend a Proposal
Follow a Proposal
In DiscussionGeneral Resolution: LLM usage in Debian
General Resolution: LLM usage in Debian
General Resolution: LLM usage in Debian
DecidedDebian Project Leader Elections 2026
Debian Project Leader Elections 2025
Debian Project Leader Elections 2024
General Resolution: Statement about the EU Legislation "Cyber Resilience Act and Product Liability Directive"
Debian Project Leader Elections 2023
General Resolution: non-free firmware
Debian Project Leader Elections 2022
General Resolution: Voting secrecy
General Resolution: Change the resolution process
General Resolution: Statement regarding Richard Stallman's readmission to the FSF board
Debian Project Leader Elections 2021
Debian Project Leader Elections 2020
General Resolution: Init systems and systemd
Debian Project Leader Elections 2019
Debian Project Leader Elections 2018
Debian Project Leader Elections 2017
General Resolution: Declassifying debian-private
General Resolution: Replace "Chairman" with "Chair" throughout the Debian Constitution
General Resolution: Declassifying debian-private
Debian Project Leader Elections 2016
General Resolution: Update Standard Resolution Procedure
Debian Project Leader Elections 2015
General Resolution: Limiting the term of the technical committee members
General Resolution: init system coupling
General Resolution: code of conduct
Debian Project Leader Elections 2014
Debian Project Leader Elections 2013
General Resolution: Diversity statement
Debian Project Leader Elections 2012
Debian Project Leader Elections 2011
General Resolution: Debian project members
Debian Project Leader Elections 2010
Debian Project Leader Elections 2009
General Resolution: Lenny and resolving DFSG violations
General Resolution: Project membership procedures
Debian Project Leader Elections 2008
Constitutional amendment: reduce the length of DPL election process
General Resolution: Endorse the concept of Debian Maintainers
General Resolution: Altering package upload rules
Debian Project Leader Elections 2007
General Resolution: Handling source-less firmware in the Linux kernel
General Resolution: Re-affirm support to the Debian Project Leader
General Resolution: Recall the project leader
General Resolution: Position statement clarifying DFSG #2
Constitutional Amendment General Resolution: Handling assets for the project
Debian Project Leader Elections 2006
General Resolution: Why the GNU Free Documentation License is not suitable for Debian main
General Resolution: Declassification of debian-private list archives
Debian Project Leader Elections 2005
General Resolution: Sarge Release Schedule in view of GR 2004-003
General Resolution: Editorial amendments to the social contract
General Resolution: Status of the non-free section
Debian Project Leader Elections 2004
Constitutional Amendment: Disambiguation of Section 4.1.5
Constitutional Amendment: Condorcet/Clone Proof SSD Voting Method
Debian Project Leader Elections 2003
Debian Project Leader Elections 2002
Leader Elections 2001
Leader Elections 2000
Swap Logos
New Logo
Logo License
Leader Elections 1999
Constitution
Debian Project Leader Elections 2026
Debian Project Leader Elections 2026
Debian Project Leader Elections 2025
Debian Project Leader Elections 2025
Debian Project Leader Elections 2024
Debian Project Leader Elections 2024
General Resolution: Statement about the EU Legislation "Cyber Resilience Act and Product Liability Directive"
Debian Project Leader Elections 2023
Debian Project Leader Elections 2023
General Resolution: non-free firmware
General Resolution: non-free firmware
Debian Project Leader Elections 2022
Debian Project Leader Elections 2022
General Resolution: Voting secrecy
General Resolution: Voting secrecy
General Resolution: Change the resolution process
General Resolution: Change the resolution process
General Resolution: Statement regarding Richard Stallman's readmission to the FSF board
General Resolution: Statement regarding Richard Stallman's readmission to the FSF board
Debian Project Leader Elections 2021
Debian Project Leader Elections 2021
Debian Project Leader Elections 2020
Debian Project Leader Elections 2020
General Resolution: Init systems and systemd
General Resolution: Init systems and systemd
Debian Project Leader Elections 2019
Debian Project Leader Elections 2019
Debian Project Leader Elections 2018
Debian Project Leader Elections 2018
Debian Project Leader Elections 2017
Debian Project Leader Elections 2017
General Resolution: Declassifying debian-private
General Resolution: Declassifying debian-private
General Resolution: Replace "Chairman" with "Chair" throughout the Debian Constitution
General Resolution: Declassifying debian-private
General Resolution: Declassifying debian-private
Debian Project Leader Elections 2016
Debian Project Leader Elections 2016
General Resolution: Update Standard Resolution Procedure
General Resolution: Update Standard Resolution Procedure
Debian Project Leader Elections 2015
Debian Project Leader Elections 2015
General Resolution: Limiting the term of the technical committee members
General Resolution: Limiting the term of the technical committee members
General Resolution: init system coupling
General Resolution: init system coupling
General Resolution: code of conduct
General Resolution: code of conduct
Debian Project Leader Elections 2014
Debian Project Leader Elections 2014
Debian Project Leader Elections 2013
Debian Project Leader Elections 2013
General Resolution: Diversity statement
General Resolution: Diversity statement
Debian Project Leader Elections 2012
Debian Project Leader Elections 2012
Debian Project Leader Elections 2011
Debian Project Leader Elections 2011
General Resolution: Debian project members
General Resolution: Debian project members
Debian Project Leader Elections 2010
Debian Project Leader Elections 2010
Debian Project Leader Elections 2009
Debian Project Leader Elections 2009
General Resolution: Lenny and resolving DFSG violations
General Resolution: Lenny and resolving DFSG violations
General Resolution: Project membership procedures
General Resolution: Project membership procedures
Debian Project Leader Elections 2008
Debian Project Leader Elections 2008
Constitutional amendment: reduce the length of DPL election process
Constitutional amendment: reduce the length of DPL election process
General Resolution: Endorse the concept of Debian Maintainers
General Resolution: Endorse the concept of Debian Maintainers
General Resolution: Altering package upload rules
General Resolution: Altering package upload rules
Debian Project Leader Elections 2007
Debian Project Leader Elections 2007
General Resolution: Handling source-less firmware in the Linux kernel
General Resolution: Handling source-less firmware in the Linux kernel
General Resolution: Re-affirm support to the Debian Project Leader
General Resolution: Re-affirm support to the Debian Project Leader
General Resolution: Recall the project leader
General Resolution: Recall the project leader
General Resolution: Position statement clarifying DFSG #2
General Resolution: Position statement clarifying DFSG #2
Constitutional Amendment General Resolution: Handling assets for the project
Constitutional Amendment General Resolution: Handling assets for the project
Debian Project Leader Elections 2006
Debian Project Leader Elections 2006
General Resolution: Why the GNU Free Documentation License is not suitable for Debian main
General Resolution: Why the GNU Free Documentation License is not suitable for Debian main
General Resolution: Declassification of debian-private list archives
General Resolution: Declassification of debian-private list archives
Debian Project Leader Elections 2005
Debian Project Leader Elections 2005
General Resolution: Sarge Release Schedule in view of GR 2004-003
General Resolution: Sarge Release Schedule in view of GR 2004-003
General Resolution: Editorial amendments to the social contract
General Resolution: Editorial amendments to the social contract
General Resolution: Status of the non-free section
General Resolution: Status of the non-free section
Debian Project Leader Elections 2004
Debian Project Leader Elections 2004
Constitutional Amendment: Disambiguation of Section 4.1.5
Constitutional Amendment: Disambiguation of Section 4.1.5
Constitutional Amendment: Condorcet/Clone Proof SSD Voting Method
Constitutional Amendment: Condorcet/Clone Proof SSD Voting Method
Debian Project Leader Elections 2003
Debian Project Leader Elections 2003
Debian Project Leader Elections 2002
Debian Project Leader Elections 2002
Leader Elections 2001
Leader Elections 2000
Swap Logos
New Logo
Logo License
Leader Elections 1999
Constitution
WithdrawnGeneral Resolution: Interpretation of DFSG on Artificial Intelligence (AI) Models
General Resolution: tag2upload
General Resolution: Update Standard Resolution Procedure
General Resolution: Sponsorship requirements for General Resolutions
General Resolution: Force AMD64 architecture into Sarge
IRC as a Debian communication channel
General Resolution: Interpretation of DFSG on Artificial Intelligence (AI) Models
General Resolution: Interpretation of DFSG on Artificial Intelligence (AI) Models
General Resolution: tag2upload
General Resolution: tag2upload
General Resolution: Update Standard Resolution Procedure
General Resolution: Update Standard Resolution Procedure
General Resolution: Sponsorship requirements for General Resolutions
General Resolution: Sponsorship requirements for General Resolutions
General Resolution: Force AMD64 architecture into Sarge
General Resolution: Force AMD64 architecture into Sarge
IRC as a Debian communication channel
IRC as a Debian communication channel
OtherSuperseded: Constitutional amendment: Smith/Condorcet vote tallying
Superseded: Constitutional amendment: alternate disambiguation of 4.1.5
Superseded: Constitutional amendment: disambiguation of 4.1.5
Superseded: Non-free Archive Removal
Superseded: Constitutional amendment: Smith/Condorcet vote tallying
Superseded: Constitutional amendment: Smith/Condorcet vote tallying
Superseded: Constitutional amendment: alternate disambiguation of 4.1.5
Superseded: Constitutional amendment: alternate disambiguation of 4.1.5
Superseded: Constitutional amendment: disambiguation of 4.1.5
Superseded: Constitutional amendment: disambiguation of 4.1.5
Superseded: Non-free Archive Removal
Superseded: Non-free Archive Removal
General Resolution: LLM usage in Debian
Time Line
Proposal A Proposer
Proposal A Seconds
Proposal A
Proposal B Proposer
Proposal B Seconds
Proposal B
Proposal C Proposer
Proposal C Seconds
Proposal C
Proposal D Proposer
Proposal D Seconds
Proposal D
Time Line
[Time Line]()
Proposal A Proposer
[Proposal A Proposer]()
Matthias Geiger [werdahias@debian.org]
[text of proposal]
Proposal A Seconds
[Proposal A Seconds]()
Johannes Schauer Marin Rodrigues [josch@debian.org] [mail]
Antoine Le Gonidec [vv221@debian.org] [mail]
Simon Richter [sjr@debian.org] [mail]
David Bremner [bremner@debian.org] [mail]
Pierre-Elliott Bécue [peb@debian.org] [mail]
Ian Jackson [iwj@debian.org] [mail]
Amin Bandali [bandali@debian.org] [mail]
Thorsten Glaser [tg@debian.org] [mail]
Proposal A
[Proposal A]()
Choice 1
Preamble
This proposal aims to expressly forbid any contributions to Debian written with
the use or assistance of large language models (LLMs) or other generative AI
tools.
The scope of this GR is (non-exhaustive):
Debian source packages
Official Debian project software, such as lintian
Debian web resources
Documentation and translations added by Debian contributors
Official communication from Debian
It does not include:
Upstream projects using LLMs for development
AI-related software
Upstream patches/security fixes etc.
Rationale
Debian has a well-earned reputation for stability. This stability is crucial to
Debian's position in the free software ecosystem. It is our belief that
widespread LLM usage comes from the "move fast, and break things" attitude that,
while common in many parts of this industry, is contrary to what makes Debian
Debian, and is inappropriate for Debian contributors.
In practical terms, LLM usage raises the following concerns:
LLM output has very unclear legal status: it may be possible to
copyright on its own merits, or not; it may be affected by all of the licenses
and copyrights in the training data, or not. Debian Policy and the DFSG require
absolute clarity for licensing and copyright[1][2]. Software and other
contributions written conventionally by humans with unclear copyright or license
status are not allowed in Debian; LLM output should not have a special exception
to this.
LLM output has many well-known problems with accuracy.[3][4][5] A
LLM can never "know" if its output is correct since it merely produces
syntactically likely combinations of the training data. In some environments
this is good enough. In Debian, it is not. For instance, in packaging, each
Debian source package is unique. Since packaging syntax and best practices have
changed over time, a LLM-produced package will have a mixture of contents
spanning the age of the archive, with watch files that do not work, overrides
out of context, imaginary copyright, and will generally be unfit for upload. A
seasoned Debian contributor with packaging expertise may find some limited
usefulness here, but a new contributor cannot, and would not know how to fix it.
These same quality and accuracy concerns apply clearly to all of the areas
listed in the scope of this proposal above. If Debian were a closed organization
comprising only domain experts who never leave, this might not be an issue;
however,
Debian is a project that is more than just code: it is a community
built on shared interests in free software and solving technical problems.
Debian intentionally grows this community through many means, and new
contributors are always encouraged to join. Allowing LLM contributions breaks
this. New contributors submitting LLM output for review places an unnecessary
strain on the reviewer, which can lead to burnout. Furthermore, LLM-dependent
new contributors do not actually learn and understand the details of Debian
packaging or processes, so they cannot come to replace a former burned out DD.
LLM companies directly hurt the free software community as whole by
scraping the whole web for training data without any regard for license,
copyright, or even established conventions such as robots.txt.[6] This has had a
major negative impact on Debian's public web resources, effectively a large
scale and perpetual Denial of Service attack on sites that many users rely on.
As a consequence parts of our infrastructure were not reachable at all, and
JS-based checks had to be enabled. Many other projects were similarly affected.
Furthermore, LLM training consumes a staggering amount of resources[7], and the
user verification systems that we have been forced to implement as protection
waste resources as well. This is blatant disregard for the internet as a public
resource, wastes system administrator time, and although individual LLM sessions
do not directly use massive resources or DoS the public web, the fact that they
can be used at all is a direct result of these unethical behaviours by the LLM
companies.
Debian has a Social Contract. [8] Our priorities are our users and free
software. Debian is Stable. [9] Users and organizations choose Debian because it
is reliable and secure.
Debian is not here to generate as much code as possible requiring manual review
by a shrinking number of human volunteers, or to package every piece of
software, or to rush new features, but these are what LLMs are used for.
In conclusion, allowing LLM contributions is contrary to the social contract and
the common cause of creating a free operating system with a focus on quality and
stability.
Proposal
In the interest of not eroding Debian's reputation or further damaging the
community, LLM-assisted contributions should be prohibited from inclusion in
Debian.
Though our position is that LLM contributions are contrary to documents already
ratified by Debian, in order to remove all doubt, we propose the following
addition to the Social Contract:
Possible Issues
Other projects exploring similar decisions have elicited a common reply: "How
will you enforce a ban on LLM contributions?" While enforcement could be a
challenge, this is a statement of intent by the Debian community, and we trust
this community to adhere to it in good faith.
Citations
[1]
https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-archive.html#copyright-considerations
[2]
https://www.debian.org/social_contract#guidelines
[3]
https://web.archive.org/web/20240614004123/https://news.northeastern.edu/2023/11/10/ai-chatbot-hallucinations/
[4]
https://web.archive.org/web/20250328154700/https://transformer-circuits.pub/2025/attribution-graphs/biology.html#dives-cot
[5]
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/openais-sam-altman-tells-salesforces-marc-benioff-that-ai-hallucinations-are-more-feature-than-bug-1c035c52
[6]
https://lwn.net/Articles/1008897/
[7]
https://tech-insider.org/ai-data-center-power-crisis-2026/
[8]
https://www.debian.org/social_contract
[9]
https://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/debian-reference/pr01.en.html#_what_is_debian
Disclaimers
Citations are for background information only and do not reflect an
endorsement of specific websites.
Some ideas and wording were derived from the sources below.
Sources
GNOME discussion:
https://discourse.gnome.org/t/loupe-no-longer-allows-generative-ai-contributions/27327
(CC0) Gentoo AI policy:
https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Project:Council/AI_policy
Codeberg AI policy:
https://codeberg.org/Codeberg/org/pulls/1253#issuecomment-19820434
This document was written by Matthias Geiger and Jesse Rhodes
with input from Sledge and josch, organically and without language model
assistance.
Proposal B Proposer
[Proposal B Proposer]()
Lucas Nussbaum [lucas@debian.org]
[text of proposal]
[text of amendment]
[text of amendment]
Proposal B Seconds
[Proposal B Seconds]()
Andrey Rahmatullin [wrar@debian.org] [mail]
Christian Kastner [ckk@debian.org] [mail]
Anton Gladky [gladk@debian.org] [mail]
Stefano Zacchiroli [zack@debian.org] [mail]
Simon Quigley [tsimonq2@debian.org] [mail]
Soren Stoutner [soren@debian.org] [mail]
Julian Andres Klode [jak@debian.org] [mail]
Andreas Tille [tille@debian.org] [mail]
Philipp Kern pkern@debian.org] [mail]
Proposal B
[Proposal B]()
Choice 2
Allow AI-Assisted Contributions
Using its power under Constitution section 4.1 (5), the project issues the
following statement describing its current position on AI-assisted
contributions. This statement describes the position of the project at the
time it is adopted. That position may evolve as time passes without the need
to resort to future general resolutions. The GR process remains available if
the project needs a decision and cannot come to a consensus.
The Debian project recognizes that AI-assisted contributions raise many
concerns, e.g. about the technical quality and maintainability of such
contributions, and their legal status. AI itself also raises additional
concerns, about its impact on society at large, on the IT industry and on
Free Software; about its environmental impact; and the aggressive or
non-compliant practices of AI scrapers.
Nevertheless, many Debian contributors find AI tools helpful when
contributing to Debian, and ultimately for improving Debian.
Given both the benefits and risks of AI assistance, and the controversial
discussions within the community, the Debian project finds it necessary to
clarify its position on AI-assisted contributions and establish clear
guidelines.
The Debian project allows AI-assisted contributions (partially or fully
generated by an LLM), provided the following conditions are met:
Tooling Legal Compatibility: Contributors should ensure that the terms and
conditions of the generative AI tool do not impose contractual
restrictions that conflict with the distribution, modification, or use of
the output in the context of Debian.
Licensing and Attribution: If any pre-existing copyrighted materials
(including pre-existing code licensed as free software) authored or owned
by third parties are included in the AI tool’s output, prior to
contributing such output to the project, the contributor should verify
they have the right to submit it under the relevant open source license.
Accountability: Contributors assume full responsibility for their
contributions, including vouching for the technical merit, security,
license compliance, and utility of their submissions. The contributor
remains solely accountable for the entirety of these contributions.
Contributors should fully understand the proposed changes and be prepared
to justify them.
Disclosure: When a significant portion of a contribution
is generated or substantially assisted by a tool, contributors should
disclose the use of the tool, making it clearly visible to the
intended audience. This covers all forms of contribution, including code,
mailing list posts, and bug discussions. The form of the disclosure is
left to the contributor; one convenient option for commits is a Git
trailer such as Generated-By: or Assisted-By:.
Prior Discussion of Bulk or Automated Changes: Similarly to the
mass-bug filing process (Developers Reference section 7.1.1),
contributors should discuss their intention before submitting bulk or
autonomously generated contributions. Any such automated process should
be overseen by a human who remains accountable for its behavior and
output.
Confidentiality and Privacy: Contributors must not use generative AI
tools that transmit data to untrusted providers with non-public or
sensitive project information (such as embargoed security reports or
private communication), as this may lead to the unintended disclosure of
confidential data.
Proposal C Proposer
[Proposal C Proposer]()
Ian Jackson [iwj@debian.org] [text of proposal]
Proposal C Seconds
[Proposal C Seconds]()
Matthias Geiger [werdahias@debian.org] [mail]
Andrea Pappacoda [tachi@debian.org] [mail]
Simon Richter [sjr@debian.org] [mail]
Antoine Le Gonidec [vv221@debian.org] [mail]
Amin Bandali [bandali@debian.org] [mail]
Bill Blough [bblough@debian.org] [mail]
Enrico Zini [enrico@debian.org] [mail]
Sean Whitton [spwhitton@debian.org] [mail]
Proposal C
[Proposal C]()
Choice 3
Summary: Reject LLMs (generative "AI") as far as practical
LLMs have many serious problems, including: undermining the mechanisms
of free software community building; environmental damage;
exploitation of authors; disruption to open web hosting by
aggressive scraping; generation and promulgation of bullshit;
polluting the information commons; hazards to users' mental health;
economic bubbles; distortion of the computer hardware market;
fraud; ownership by horrible people and companies; and so on.
Ethical and safe use of this technology is almost impossible.
Ideally, LLM output should not form any part of software that we rely
on, nor should LLM output ever take the place of human-written prose.
Unfortunately some of the wider software world, including many of our
upstreams, take a different view. Therefore a complete ban on LLM
output as part of Debian is currently impractical.
- We request that all contributors to Debian avoid the use of LLMs in
their Debian work.
- We request that all decisionmakers within Debian discourage LLM use
as much as practical. Practicality is a judgement call and we
recognise that it will involve uncomfortable compromises.
- We request that everyone, even outside Debian, should refrain from
using this technology. In particular, the Free Software and Open
Source communities should reject LLMs. We recognise that not
everyone will heed this call.
- Within Debian, messages to humans (including for example bug
reports, mailing list messages, discussions on Salsa, and blog
posts on Planet Debian) must be drafted solely by humans without
LLM assistance.
- Any use of LLMs for Debian work must be disclosed.
- Individual projects and maintainers may ban LLM contributions
completely. Such bans (including by upstream projects) must be
respected.
- Violations of these requirements should be treated as violations of
the Code of Conduct and should result in swift but proportionate
disciplinary action.
- Any contributor who feels they cannot write in English without
assistance, may write in their native language, and expect readers
to use translation tools of their choice. In that case a
human-written English summary would be very welcome but is not
required. In any case we promise not to shame anyone for any
linguistic mistakes.
Proposal D Proposer
[Proposal D Proposer]()
Pierre-Elliott Bécue [peb@debian.org] [text of proposal]
Proposal D Seconds
[Proposal D Seconds]()
Russ Allbery [rra@debian.org] [mail]
Johannes Schauer Marin Rodrigues [josch@debian.org] [mail]
Jonathan Carter [jcc@debian.org] [mail]
Gunnar Wolf [gwolf@debian.org] [mail]
Tiago Bortoletto Vaz [tiago@debian.org] [mail]
Jeremy Sowden [azazel@debian.org] [mail]
Proposal D
[Proposal D]()
Choice 4
Accept AI contributions for Debian specific work
Debian as a project does not endorse or recommend the use of generative
AI assistants for software development, as it raises multiple concerns
about ethics, legality, copyright, etc.
Nevertheless, Debian acknowledges that these practices are already in
use and here to stay. Rather than banning their use, which seems
counter-productive and unenforceable, the project chooses to place
responsibility on contributors and therefore defines the following
guidelines.
These apply exclusively to code and work done specifically for the
Debian project (Debian websites, applications, resources, packages,
etc.). They do not apply to any upstream work. In what follows, "work"
refers to the contributions done specifically for the Debian project.
All code and work assisted by a generative AI agent or tool must
comply with the DFSG.
The submitter is solely responsible for the submitted work and:
they sufficiently evaluated and properly understand the work they
intend to submit, and are able to explain and defend it;
they put any potential Signed-off-by tag and GPG signatures on the
contributions they send to the Debian infrastructure (package,
commit, mail, …) themselves;
any content uploaded that would end up in production on Debian
infrastructure (main git branch, package upload) has been submitted
by them explicitely.
they sufficiently evaluated and properly understand the work they
intend to submit, and are able to explain and defend it;
they put any potential Signed-off-by tag and GPG signatures on the
contributions they send to the Debian infrastructure (package,
commit, mail, …) themselves;
any content uploaded that would end up in production on Debian
infrastructure (main git branch, package upload) has been submitted
by them explicitely.
Work assisted by a generative AI agent or tool should be marked as
such in the adapted place (commit message, changelog, …). Some
lightweight generative tools, such as tab-completion in Copilot, may
be used without the contributor realising they rely on generative AI
models; we therefore trust submitters to assess when this rule
applies. When in doubt, add such marking;
No cloud-based AI shall be used when the data transmitted could
either be sensitive to the project (personal data, information under
embargo, …) or not public (debian-private discussions, …).
Back to the Debian Project homepage.
Home
About
Social Contract
Code of Conduct
Free Software
Legal Info
Social Contract
Code of Conduct
Free Software
Legal Info
Help Debian
Getting Debian
Network install
CD/USB ISO images
Pure Blends
Debian Packages
Developers' Corner
Network install
CD/USB ISO images
Pure Blends
Debian Packages
Developers' Corner
News
Project News
Events
Project News
Events
Documentation
Release Info
Debian Wiki
Release Info
Debian Wiki
Support
Debian International
Security Information
Bug reports
Mailing Lists
Debian International
Security Information
Bug reports
Mailing Lists
Site map
Search
The Debian Blog
Debian Micronews
Debian Planet
See our contact page to get in touch. Web site source code is available.
Last Modified: Sat, Jul 25 23:24:12 UTC 2026
Last Built: Sat, Jul 25 23:36:39 UTC 2026
Copyright © 2026 SPI and others; See license terms
Debian is a registered trademark of Software in the Public Interest, Inc.