[arch-general] Why no option to stay with clamav 103 since as a LTS release it will be supported longer then 104?

[Fabian Bornschein]

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 <arch-general at lists.archlinux.org>:
> 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.