Darktable Copr

[Michael Catanzaro]

On Wed, 2015-09-09 at 18:33 -0400, Josh Boyer wrote:
> 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.

In the Workstation WG, there is consensus on moving towards
distributing applications as xdg-app bundles. Applications will be
required to bundle any library not provided by the xdg-app runtime. I
don't think we have made any formal decisions regarding this, but it
seems almost inevitable at this point. We also haven't defined what
applications will be required to use xdg-app, but history tells us that
if the answer isn't "almost everything," the project will fail. An
optional application sandbox is a pointless application sandbox;
developers aren't going to use it if it's optional, since that's more
work for them.

> 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.

I don't really understand what the end goal is with coprs, I suppose,
and I'm not sure if the copr developers or anyone else does either.
There's really no practical difference to the end user whether the
application is in Fedora or a copr, so long as it appears in GNOME
Software. But if the packaging guidelines can be circumvented simply by
migrating applications to a copr, then applications are going to
migrate to coprs. Eventually we're going to have a lot fewer
applications in the Fedora repositories. This isn't necessarily a bad
thing, but I don't really see why it's desirable....

Cheers,

Michael