On 11/18/2016 12:46 PM, Doug Newgard wrote: > On Sat, 19 Nov 2016 02:34:08 +0900 > Ken OKABE via arch-general <arch-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> What kind of scenario in the real world to be problematic to maintain >> KDE Plasma LTS line as separated packages from non-LTS? > > A whole lot more work for litte/no gain. The kernel is a different, as it can > cause an unbootable situation. This. LTS releases are fundamentally in violation of the concept of "rolling release" -- we sort of want the latest everything! Sometimes, other concerns necessitate doing something that isn't strictly the Arch Way, however. The kernel is an excellent example -- as Doug said, if you cannot boot your computer there isn't a lot else you can do, it is time to pull out the installation media... For the firmware responsible for booting your computer and which is required even to get access to the emergency root shell, it is worth dealing with LTS. If something goes wrong with the latest plasma, okay, fine, you can revert the package update as a stopgap measure, debug plasma to submit bug reports and get it fixed, google workarounds... but your computer is not soft bricked (or hard bricked, but that is another matter entirely). Just like most LTS software, I do not see plasma-lts getting into the repos. However, the AUR exists in part to give such pet projects a home. Arch is ultimately whatever you make of it. But the [community] repo isn't the right place for personal experiments. -- Eli Schwartz
