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.