Darktable Copr

[Josh Boyer]

On Wed, Sep 9, 2015 at 6:20 PM, Michael Catanzaro <mcatanzaro at gnome.org> wrote:
> 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.

A ticket is going to be opened in the FESCo tracker to discuss the
broader implications of Fedora's packaging guidelines compared to the
reality of software development today.  Frankly, I hope we find a much
better balance than we have today.

However, it is unclear to me 1) what you mean by mandate, and 2) how
you plan on doing so at a Fedora Project level particularly when the
project has not committed to shipping any kind of xdg-app at all.  I
believe the desire and intentions are there, but mandate seems a bit
bold at this point.

> 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

To be clear, Darktable was retired on the f23 and master branches this
afternoon.  If you want to feature it in Software, you need to use the
Copr for F23.

> 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]!)

Yes, Coprs are being used to provide useful software outside of the
Fedora repositories.  This is not surprising at all.  What would be
the good of building the Copr infrastructure if it wasn't used?  I
also don't think it is all that much of a problem either.

Also, from a delivery and infrastructure standpoint, xdg-apps will
most likely look very similar.  I don't see any reason to discourage
Copr usage while then turning around and encouraging xdg-apps.

> 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.

Some in FESCo agreed, which is why the aforementioned ticket is going
to be opened.

josh