intent to update eccodes

[Jos de Kloe]

Hi,

I received a user request to update eccodes, see:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1850633

Currently EPEL7 and EPEL8 have version 2.14 that was published by 
upstream last October.
The latest upstream version is 2.18 and is, as far as I can tell fully 
backwards compatible with 2.14.
However, it does contain a number of bug-fixes and additions.

When I look at the update pol;icy:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL/GuidelinesAndPolicies#Some_examples_of_w...
then my guess would be that it is okay to perform this update, since the 
update is in my eyes minor.
The update policy on this page mentions ABI compatibility but does not 
mention what to do if an ABI change is backward compatible.

So since knowing is better than guessing, before putting effort in to 
this, I would like to ask on this mailing list if my interpretation is 
correct.

Jos de Kloe.

[Jeff Sheltren]

Hi Jos, seems fine to me; I'd say go for it!

-Jeff

On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 12:58 PM Jos de Kloe  wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I received a user request to update eccodes, see:
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1850633
>
> Currently EPEL7 and EPEL8 have version 2.14 that was published by
> upstream last October.
> The latest upstream version is 2.18 and is, as far as I can tell fully
> backwards compatible with 2.14.
> However, it does contain a number of bug-fixes and additions.
>
> When I look at the update pol;icy:
>
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL/GuidelinesAndPolicies#Some_examples_of_w...
> then my guess would be that it is okay to perform this update, since the
> update is in my eyes minor.
> The update policy on this page mentions ABI compatibility but does not
> mention what to do if an ABI change is backward compatible.
>
> So since knowing is better than guessing, before putting effort in to
> this, I would like to ask on this mailing list if my interpretation is
> correct.
>
> Jos de Kloe.

[Troy Dawson]

I agree with Jeff.
It looks good, go for it.

On Thu, Jun 25, 2020 at 8:49 AM Jeff Sheltren  wrote:
> Hi Jos, seems fine to me; I'd say go for it!
>
> -Jeff
>
> On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 12:58 PM Jos de Kloe  wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I received a user request to update eccodes, see:
> > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1850633
> >
> > Currently EPEL7 and EPEL8 have version 2.14 that was published by
> > upstream last October.
> > The latest upstream version is 2.18 and is, as far as I can tell fully
> > backwards compatible with 2.14.
> > However, it does contain a number of bug-fixes and additions.
> >
> > When I look at the update pol;icy:
> > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL/GuidelinesAndPolicies#Some_examples_of_w...
> > then my guess would be that it is okay to perform this update, since the
> > update is in my eyes minor.
> > The update policy on this page mentions ABI compatibility but does not
> > mention what to do if an ABI change is backward compatible.
> >
> > So since knowing is better than guessing, before putting effort in to
> > this, I would like to ask on this mailing list if my interpretation is
> > correct.
> >
> > Jos de Kloe.
>
> epel-devel mailing list -- [e-mail]
> To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]
> Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
> List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
> List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/[e-mail]...