Il 10/07/2015 18:24, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski ha scritto: >>> Could you please do the same in your report on darktable's redmine? I >>> don't have an account there. >>> http://redmine.darktable.org/issues/10582 Done > 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 > rawspeed upstream. > > Regards, > Dominik A little piece of #darktable Freenode channel chat of yesterday, concerning the proposal of Fedora shipping Rawspeed as static library ================ [20:59] <houz> Germano: there are 2 cases that can go wrong: [20:59] <houz> 1) fedora ships a copy of rawspeed that is older than what we expect. the result is missing camera support compared to our release notes [20:59] <pmjdebruijn> which is bound to happen, since upstream rawspeed usually lags significant behind compared to ours [21:00] <houz> 2) fedora ships a newer version of rawspeed than what we expect. in that case rawspeed will allow loading raw formats that dt doesn't expect and misses support for [21:00] <pmjdebruijn> leading to potentially broken history stacks [21:00] <pmjdebruijn> which will impact user data essentially [21:00] <houz> and yes, there is 3) our copy of rawspeed is more a fork that gets synced back and forth than just a copy. actual work is done in our copy [21:22] <Germano> I am sure somebody will say: "uh can't they just submit their Rawspeed changes to upstream and then wait for an upstream version being released and use it?" [21:23] <houz> yes, we could. and stop releasing every 2 months or so ================ -- packaging mailing list packaging@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging
