On 11/17/21 1:43 AM, Fabian Bornschein via arch-general wrote: > I think this comes down to a few questions: > > 1. What are the benefits of it? 5 years stable update to the 103 LTS branch. I will get 3 more years of update than the new 104 release > 2. Who's going to package,test,maintain it? I don't have a problem doing that if Gaetan doesn't want to just add it along side the clamav package he maintains. > 3. Who's going to use it? Arch used on servers always gravitates toward the LTS packages. (especially security related packages) > 4. Will this potentially require to keep older versions of dependencies in the > repos at some point? No, there are no old tag-along libraries needed to support 103 that are not the exact same use in the current release. > 5. What is the optimal upgrade path of it? (LTS -> LTS, when new LTS is > released? Stay on 103 until it's EOL? …?) The packages are interchangeable. At the end of the 5 year support period, the user can simply transition to the next LTS release. > > For 3. I see that there is no AUR package (or I coudn't find it). This looks > like low interest. I'll do the aur package if there isn't interest here. Though I will need somebody to remove the "package_name.git" repo I accidentally create that is blocking my attempt to create it with the proper name.... > 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). > -- David C. Rankin, J.D.,P.E.
