[arch-general] Does LTS package really not fit to Rolling Release model and Arch Philosophy?

[Ken OKABE]

>What's completely missing by the kernel related explanation is, that
upstrem provides, IOW maintains longterm linux,
https://www.kernel.org/ . Does KDE upstream maintain KDE Plasma LTS?

Ralf, exactly, and that is to what I'm attracted.
https://community.kde.org/Schedules/Plasma_5
According to the planned release schedule for Plasma 5,  the 5.9.0,
that is non-LTS will be released on 2017-01-31, but I simply want to
stick to 5.8-LTS until the next Plasma-LTS release for the most
concerned GUI stability of the system. In my experience, linux GUI
environment(DE) tends to be easily broken with frequent upgrades, and
I'm very happy to hear KDE project releases their first
Long-Term-Support edition for Plasma.

Regards,
Ken

On Sat, Nov 19, 2016 at 2:53 AM, Ralf Mardorf <silver.bullet at zoho.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 19 Nov 2016 02:34:08 +0900, Ken OKABE via arch-general wrote:
>>What kind of scenario in the real world to be problematic to maintain
>>KDE Plasma LTS line as separated packages from non-LTS?
>
> Apart from the policy, the problem are maintainers willing it to do and
> to provide it by a third party repository. It's not that much work
> to provide it and all dependencies as separated packages, as long as
> you don't want e.g. security patches. IOW if you expect some quality,
> it's not just installing everything to /opt or providing it by
> something like snaps, you also need to maintain it, e.g. if there
> should be known vulnerabilities.
>
> What's completely missing by the kernel related explanation is, that
> upstrem provides, IOW maintains longterm linux,
> https://www.kernel.org/ . Does KDE upstream maintain KDE Plasma LTS?
>
> Regards,
> Ralf