Hi there,
The Armadillo C++ linear algebra library bumps major versions regularly despite no ABI changes, and often contains speed improvements to existing algorithms that in turn improve downstream packages (of which Fedora has only two: gdal and mlpack).
So, following my understanding of the Update Exception Policy, I think that this should be eligible for an update exception, due to the lack of ABI changes (just a soname bump requiring a rebuild) and the fact that there are few downstream packages.
There are no CVEs or significant security fixes in newer Armadillo versions. There are however various bugfixes in each Armadillo release, although typically only improvements and new functionality are listed in the changelog.
I tested that ABI compatibility is retained with the fedabipkgdiff tool, which I think I used correctly:
fedabipkgdiff
$ fedabipkgdiff --from fc39 armadillo-devel-12.6.6-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm $ fedabipkgdiff --from fc38 armadillo-devel-12.6.6-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm $ fedabipkgdiff --from el9 armadillo-devel-12.6.6-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm $ fedabipkgdiff --from el8 armadillo-devel-12.6.6-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm
(My understanding is that no output means no ABI changes. Correct me if I am wrong...)
If FESCo thinks it would be reasonable to grant a permanent exception due to the frequency of Armadillo's major version bumps (maybe once every 12 to 18 months), I'd be happy about that, and I could open another issue if desired for that discussion. Or, alternately, if the surface of affected users is sufficiently small enough that an exception request is a bit overkill for a package with two dependents that just need to be rebuilt, I can also stop wasting FESCo's time with such a minor thing :smile:
I think this is probably reasonable, given that there's no real incompatibility. Though, I don't think you run afoul of our general updates policy, and could pretty much do this anyway.
But if you want an exception on this, I'm fine with it.
+1
Metadata Update from @ngompa: - Issue tagged with: updates policy exception
If you think it's entirely unnecessary to go through the exception request process, then I'll just update and do rebuilds from here on out. My read of the policy was that I needed to do this, but if not, it's easier all-around for everyone. :) Thanks!
Metadata Update from @rcurtin: - Issue close_status updated to: Invalid - Issue status updated to: Closed (was: Open)
Metadata Update from @sgallagh: - Issue status updated to: Open (was: Closed)
If they only update every 12-18 months, I think that's probably not going to be an issue for Fedora, since we only have a 13 month lifecycle. (Granted, if the timing doesn't line up, it would be unfortunate to be six months out of date).
There's more question here for the EPEL committee, I think. That group should probably weigh in on updates for RHEL-derived distros.
From EPEL's perspective, we only care about incompatible updates. This doesn't count as one.
Metadata Update from @ngompa: - Issue close_status updated to: Invalid - Issue status updated to: Closed (was: Open)
soname bump requiring a rebuild
even if this is retaining ABI compatibility, doing all the necessary rebuilds on stable branches and EPEL is certainly something that needs to be done right, and having an updates policy exception for it would appease some "old man yells at cloud" types, I think ...
Login to comment on this ticket.