[arch-general] Why no option to stay with clamav 103 since as a LTS release it will be supported longer then 104?
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.
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
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.
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.
On Wed, 17 Nov 2021 02:53:08 -0600, David C. Rankin via arch-general wrote:
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.
The question probably is, if there's only one clamav release available. For the kernels there are 6 LTS releases available: longterm: 5.10.79 longterm: 5.4.160 longterm: 4.19.217 longterm: 4.14.255 longterm: 4.9.290 longterm: 4.4.292 core/linux-lts is 5.10.79-1. For several reasons I stay with 4.19 LTS kernels. For some use cases I could use 5.4 LTS kernels, but kernels > 5.4 are no option for my machine and usage. [rocketmouse@archlinux ~]$ uname -rm 4.19.217-rt95-0.1000 x86_64 IOW if more than one clamav LTS should exist, what choice to do for packaging.
participants (3)
-
David C. Rankin
-
Fabian Bornschein
-
Ralf Mardorf