Overview
Request 1171859 declined
[botdel] Package has had build problems for >= 6 weeks
- Created by repo-checker
- In state declined
- Open review for filesystems / openafs
-
Open review for
factory-staging
Request History
repo-checker created request
[botdel] Package has had build problems for >= 6 weeks
staging-bot added openSUSE:Factory:Staging:adi:5 as a reviewer
Being evaluated by staging project "openSUSE:Factory:Staging:adi:5"
staging-bot accepted review
Picked "openSUSE:Factory:Staging:adi:5"
licensedigger accepted review
factory-auto added openafs as a reviewer
submitter not devel maintainer
factory-auto accepted review
ok
dimstar_suse added factory-staging as a reviewer
Being evaluated by group "factory-staging"
dimstar_suse accepted review
Unstaged from project "openSUSE:Factory:Staging:adi:5"
dimstar_suse added openSUSE:Factory:Staging:adi:46 as a reviewer
Being evaluated by staging project "openSUSE:Factory:Staging:adi:46"
dimstar_suse accepted review
Picked "openSUSE:Factory:Staging:adi:46"
jeff_mahoney declined review
The builds aren't failing and it appears to be actively maintained.
jeff_mahoney declined request
The builds aren't failing and it appears to be actively maintained.
anag+factory reopened request
Reopened via staging workflow.
anag+factory added factory-staging as a reviewer
Being evaluated by group "factory-staging"
anag+factory accepted review
Unstaged from project "openSUSE:Factory:Staging:adi:46"
anag+factory declined request
Declined via staging workflow.
The builds aren't actually failing, though. It seems to have an active maintainer with the most recent update under 3 weeks ago.
Sorry for the long delay... The openafs-developers are usually lagging behind the latest kernel. There is still no new official release. But apparently a new pre-release is in the making. I could also just add the required patches (this submit-request was declined) or base the whole rpm on the git branch "openafs-stable-1_8_x" which should build right now. Please advise what I should do.
I think you can use the branch that builds. If upstream needs time to sync up, the build problems can happen often so it would be better to have a process that prevents that.
Fine, I could do that. Do you have any suggestion on the versioning-scheme ? I could call this one either 1.8.12~pre0.N (N is my version number) or just 1.8.11.0.1 (basically $upstream.0.N) where N is my version number. The "0" might be bumped up by upstream.
That's mostly up to you so you can understand it (besides the normal versioning constraints). Another scheme I've seen or used are date tags like 1.8.12.g20240102, compared to plain numbers as you suggested this brings a bit more information to the end user.