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

[Eli Schwartz]

On 11/18/2016 12:46 PM, Doug Newgard wrote:
> On Sat, 19 Nov 2016 02:34:08 +0900
> Ken OKABE via arch-general <arch-general at archlinux.org> wrote:
> 
>> What kind of scenario in the real world to be problematic to maintain
>> KDE Plasma LTS line as separated packages from non-LTS?
> 
> A whole lot more work for litte/no gain. The kernel is a different, as it can
> cause an unbootable situation.

This.

LTS releases are fundamentally in violation of the concept of "rolling
release" -- we sort of want the latest everything!

Sometimes, other concerns necessitate doing something that isn't
strictly the Arch Way, however. The kernel is an excellent example -- as
Doug said, if you cannot boot your computer there isn't a lot else you
can do, it is time to pull out the installation media...

For the firmware responsible for booting your computer and which is
required even to get access to the emergency root shell, it is worth
dealing with LTS.
If something goes wrong with the latest plasma, okay, fine, you can
revert the package update as a stopgap measure, debug plasma to submit
bug reports and get it fixed, google workarounds... but your computer is
not soft bricked (or hard bricked, but that is another matter entirely).

Just like most LTS software, I do not see plasma-lts getting into the
repos. However, the AUR exists in part to give such pet projects a home.
Arch is ultimately whatever you make of it. But the [community] repo
isn't the right place for personal experiments.

-- 
Eli Schwartz