On Dec 8, 2011, at 23:31 , Pat Riehecky wrote:

> My newness to this (and many other) aspects of the project is going to come forward on this matter.  So anything I say here consider it at its strongest provisional at at the weakest a sign of my ignorance.
> 
> I will confess the number of patches there makes me somewhat nervous.... Things with low complexity and low risk are one thing, but the items marked high are another matter.  And I've always preferred not to deviate from upstream releases.  Patches that are accepted in the tree will probably remain there, but what if thing move a bit before release.
> 
> From a 'fewer patches is better' standpoint, if the bugs fixed here are already present on SL6.1, adding patches for a fix - while an excellent idea, could put us in a weird spot.  I like the idea of fixing things, but I'm not sure that having an SL specific build is the best of ideas.
> 
> When they release 1.6.1 we will almost certainly package it and put it in wherever makes best sense at the time.  This is a longer view and doesn't address some of the performance related issues (like the ping one you mentioned).
> 
> All this is to say, "hmmmm I like fixes, but I really don't like forking off even when we are forking off to get things that will eventually be included."


Ok, no problem. I've put up an SRPM for 1.6.0, without patches, here: http://www.desy.de/~wiesand/SL6/openafs.SLx-1.6.0-97.src.rpm

This has run on a fair number of clients and a few test servers for a while, and it does work at least as well as the current 6.1 build. And it's the latest upstream stable release.

Once 1.6.1 is released, I'll provide an SRPM for that as well.

-- 
Stephan Wiesand
DESY - DV -
Platanenallee 6
15738 Zeuthen, Germany