> This is a weird point, and concerning if it is true, because it seems to assume Arch's rolling release model is a bad model that the Arch team are forced into

> This is a weird point, and concerning if it is true, because it seems to assume Arch's rolling release model is a bad model that the Arch team are forced into due to lack of funds, whereas for most of us it is in fact one of the main reasons to use Arch. This is reading too much into it. The issue is that things like proper build infrastructure and signing enclaves is hard work that is not easy to work out and provide on a volunteer basis. We (Arch) do not support multiple architectures for the simple reason that it would imply I'd need to watch N number of builds of one package pr architecture. This is what we did for the 32bit version and 64bit version. That's a lot of wasted time, and doesn't help you sell architecture support. Signing enclave is hard to do right as it requires the technical know-how to do securely and the supported tooling to move the package signing from a pr developer basis to a central signing key. In the long run this would also enable Arch to support Secure Boot.