On Friday, 10 July 2015 at 17:56, Sérgio Basto wrote:
On Sex, 2015-07-10 at 12:48 +0200, Dominik 'Rathann'
> On Friday, 10 July 2015 at 09:35, Germano Massullo wrote:
> > Hi, I am Caterpillar, yesterday we were speaking about Darktable and
> > Rawspeed on Freenode.
> > I have a question: if Darktable's Rawspeed fork will be accepted to be
> > included in Fedora's repos, would it be possible to call it
> > "darktable-rawspeed" to distinguish and divide it from upstream
> Well, ideally there should be just one canonical version of Rawspeed and
> it should come from the canonical upstream. Using a fork is allowed if
> original upstream is dead or unresponsive to bug reports, if it's
> compatible and if other projects have switched to it as well.
FYI rawstudio bundles rawspeed , because rawspeed isn't available on
Fedora , but upstream of rawspeed is not dead 
One of my goals was update rawspeed  on rawstudio , maybe the best
was packaging rawspeed or a fork I don't know . I can help on a package
So, we have two consumers of rawspeed: rawstudio and darktable. It's
pretty clear that rawspeed must be unbundled, then, and from both.
Rawspeed upstream says that darktable's fork contributes back regularly
and the only change is disabling support for certain cameras not
supported by darktable. I wonder why this is a problem for darktable.
Germano, could you ask darktable developers what the changes are between
their fork and canonical rawspeed upstream? Please also produce a diff
and post it somewhere.
> I have provided some comments in your issue report on
Judging by last comment, upstream is receptive to the idea of at least
adding an option to build rawspeed as a library (i.e. patches welcome).
> Could you please do the same in your report on darktable's
> don't have an account there.
If darktable's rawspeed fork is ahead of rawspeed proper then one option
would be to refrain from updating until their patches are accepted by
-- Delenn to Lennier in Babylon 5:"Confessions and Lamentations"