[Fedora-packaging] Proposal to reduce anti-bundling requirements

[Josh Boyer]

On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 12:12 PM, Adam Williamson
<adamwill at fedoraproject.org> wrote:
> On Mon, 2015-09-14 at 10:13 -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
>
>> We also haven't established any kind of migration plan between the
>> two
>> repositories. In the darktable example, one of the reasons we ended
>> up
>> going back to the FPC and re-requesting an exception was that we
>> don't
>> have any mechanisms for moving an application out of the Fedora
>> repositories and into COPR automatically. So upgrades would be
>> broken.
>
> The big thing for me was that we can't use stuff from outside the
> Fedora repos to build Fedora products - so we couldn't include
> darktable in the design spin if it was in COPR.

So you aren't incorrect, but I think that actually probably won't
really hold over the long run.  Workstation can already include a set
of curated COPR repo files that are disabled by default.  That allows
Software to present the contents of the COPR in searches and then
allow a user to install from there following a proper warning.  I do
not see why the Design Spin could not follow the same steps.

Granted, that isn't "installed by default" so it isn't exactly a 1:1
comparison, but darktable could have been fairly easily available.
The thing that complicates it somewhat is that darktable was already
in Fedora proper.  However, for new software that _starts_ in a COPR,
I think this can be a reasonable route.

josh