I think this comes down to a few questions:
1. What are the benefits of it?
2. Who's going to package,test,maintain it?
3. Who's going to use it?
4. Will this potentially require to keep older versions of dependencies
in the repos at some point?
5. What is the optimal upgrade path of it? (LTS -> LTS, when new LTS is
released? Stay on 103 until it's EOL? …?)
For 3. I see that there is no AUR package (or I coudn't find it). This
looks like low interest.
Please don't get me wrong here, I'm not against it. Someone needs to
make this happen and there should be enough interest to balance out the
effort (even if it would be minimal).
Am Di, 16. Nov 2021 um 16:50:01 -0600 schrieb David C. Rankin via
arch-general <arch-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
All,
Just curious why Arch doesn't also provide the option to track
clamav_LTS
which will stay with 103 and will be supported much longer than 104?
I know, I know, Arch matches upstream, but when upstream provides
both
current and LTS, wouldn't it make sense to also package and provide
LTS like
with the kernel? (the packaging would be trivial and the same between
the
current and LTS aside from the source package for all purposes)
Just a thought as there is real advantage to being able to track
the clamav
LTS release here, without hacking pacman.conf. There are few packages
that
actually provide a LTS branch so it wouldn't open the flood gates to
a bevy of
new packages.
--
David C. Rankin, J.D.,P.E.
