Bug 1735525

Summary:	cfitsio-3.47 is available
Product:	[Fedora] Fedora	Reporter:	Orion Poplawski <orion>
Component:	cfitsio	Assignee:	Sergio Pascual <sergio.pasra>
Status:	CLOSED CURRENTRELEASE	QA Contact:	Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa>
Severity:	unspecified	Docs Contact:
Priority:	unspecified
Version:	31	CC:	mmahut, orion, sergio.pasra
Target Milestone:	---
Target Release:	---
Hardware:	Unspecified
OS:	Unspecified
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version:		Doc Type:	If docs needed, set a value
Doc Text:		Story Points:	---
Clone Of:		Environment:
Last Closed:	2019-11-12 10:35:35 UTC	Type:	Bug
Regression:	---	Mount Type:	---
Documentation:	---	CRM:
Verified Versions:		Category:	---
oVirt Team:	---	RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team:	---	Target Upstream Version:
Embargoed:

Description Orion Poplawski 2019-08-01 03:52:40 UTC

Description of problem:

cfitsio-3.47 is available:

https://heasarc.gsfc.nasa.gov/FTP/software/fitsio/c/cfitsio-3.47.tar.gz

However, this presents a question - do we keep with the 3.### numbering (the website still refers to 3.470 despite the new tarball naming format), or do we switch to 3.47 and add an epoch?

I have updated spec files for either case.

BTW - I'm also looking at building cfitsio for EPEL8...

Comment 1 Sergio Pascual 2019-08-01 21:33:16 UTC

(In reply to Orion Poplawski from comment #0)
> Description of problem:
> 
> cfitsio-3.47 is available:
> 
> https://heasarc.gsfc.nasa.gov/FTP/software/fitsio/c/cfitsio-3.47.tar.gz
> 
> However, this presents a question - do we keep with the 3.### numbering (the
> website still refers to 3.470 despite the new tarball naming format), or do
> we switch to 3.47 and add an epoch?
> 

Yeah, that's unfortunate. Last time I checked (3.45) the tarball still was like 3.###
I don't like the idea of carrying an epoch forever, but probably is the best solution.
I have left the long version for the moment.

OTH I have already updated the package. I have added two (more) patches, one to fix a format-warning-turned-to-error
and another to revert the soname bump upstream has made. They seem to think that they have to increase the soname
with *every* API change, not only with those backwards incompatibles.

https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=1345077


> I have updated spec files for either case.
> 
> BTW - I'm also looking at building cfitsio for EPEL8... 

You could have a clean start here, with the short number. There is no upgrade path anyway from EPEL7

Comment 2 Ben Cotton 2019-08-13 17:02:37 UTC

This bug appears to have been reported against 'rawhide' during the Fedora 31 development cycle.
Changing version to '31'.

Comment 3 Ben Cotton 2019-08-13 18:37:08 UTC

This bug appears to have been reported against 'rawhide' during the Fedora 31 development cycle.
Changing version to 31.