On Mon, Mar 25, 2019 at 12:46:15AM +0100, Public mailing list for Arch Linux development wrote: > On Sun, Mar 24, 2019 at 04:39:54PM -0700, Andrew Gregory via arch-dev-public > wrote: > > I don't consider hoping that libarchive doesn't need a rebuild in the > > near future a great strategy. That being said, this is really > > a question of how long of a period we need between libarchive v3.3.3 > > and us making the switch. I'm not a packager, so I don't have much of > > an opinion on that. > > Well, we pride ourselves with having competent users. I think waiting a year > is > conservative and safe. However, personally I think we can wait for the next > pacman release and write an announcment. Then we give everyone a month to > update > and we can have a smooth transition. Assuming of course that everyone is > on-board with this change. > > I would like to get some opinions from packaging devs with experiences.
I agree with this. Arch Linux's unique 'selling' point is that we treat our users as competent persons, who don't need a special care. They are able to read announcements, react on problems and get help in one of our many community channels. I think we should keep this transition as short as possible. Everytime when I tried to propose 'enterprise' features, I got told, that Arch Linux is just a 'hobby project' and we don't need so much reliability. So why should we decide different here? chris
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
