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

[David C. Rankin]

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.