Darktable Copr

[Michael Catanzaro]

Hi,

Hm... we want to keep Darktable featured in GNOME Software. But I think
we are taking the anti-bundling crusade a bit too far, especially
considering we're about to *mandate* bundling for the *vast majority*
of libraries by nature of xdg-app.

I'm extremely hesitant to go down the route of removing applications
from Fedora due to packaging guideline issues, then turning around and
making them available in coprs and featuring them in Software. That
provides no incentive for packagers to fix the issues, and heralds a
future where packagers don't even attempt to get packages into Fedora,
but just use coprs instead. (It's already happening [1]!)

Anyway, I've been reading [2] and [3] in particular, and it seems like
this is a classic example of where a permanent bundling exception would
be appropriate: the application and library need to be updated in
tandem, different applications will want to update the library at
different times, and the upstream library maintainers expressly intend
it to be bundled. Either the applications bundle the library, or we
have to package multiple versions of the library, each one intended to
be used by a particular application, and what good does that serve?
Meanwhile, the Darktable developers agreed to work on eliminating the
bundling issues for all other libraries, which indicates a temporary
bundling exception would be appropriate for those cases. It's
discouraging that FPC feels otherwise.

Michael

[1] https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2015-September/2140
77.html
[2] https://github.com/klauspost/rawspeed/issues/109
[3] 
https://github.com/klauspost/rawspeed/issues/109#issuecomment-126295602