My impression is better to reset corosync.changes to Factory and add this fresh corosync3 part on top of that. The .changes file in the n:h:Unstable contains many informal information in my view.

Emil Penchev (epenchev) - 29 days ago

author source maintainer target maintainer

Yes that makes perfectly sense. Thanks for the feedback.

Another thought: you might want to review if the splited corosync-qdevice package follows the recent packaging best practices. Then, submit to Factory all together with corosync3.

https://build.opensuse.org/projects/network:ha-clustering:Unstable/packages/corosync-qdevice/files/corosync-qdevice.spec?expand=1

Emil Penchev (epenchev) - 29 days ago

author source maintainer target maintainer

Yes this exactly my thought as well. I'm also looking into what RH have done with corosync and qdevice in terms of packaging https://mirror.stream.centos.org/9-stream/HighAvailability/source/tree/Packages/