On Fri, 3 Aug 2012 13:40:15 -0400 Calvin Morrison <mutantturkey@gmail.com> wrote:
On 3 August 2012 13:03, Leonid Isaev <lisaev@umail.iu.edu> wrote:
On Fri, 3 Aug 2012 11:35:10 -0500 Sander Jansen <s.jansen@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 11:29 AM, Leonid Isaev <lisaev@umail.iu.edu> wrote:
On Fri, 3 Aug 2012 10:31:06 -0400 Jack Silver <jacksilver045@gmail.com> wrote:
To exchange information I want to let know this list that I have filled a feature request form to ask for a statically builded pacman.
https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/30993
Comments welcome in the bug manager.
جاك الفضة
Well, bugtracker is not a place for comments, it's for solutions.
Anyway... statically compiling things is not a way of avoiding trouble, at least not in a self-sustained fashion. So, if you propose to have pacman in [core] statically compiled against all needed libraries, I would be against that as the package will be an unmaintainable mess.
Why would it be a unmaintainable mess?
Because it is _statically_ compiled so the whole binary has to be rebuilt even after a minor update of one of the libraries. This is assuming that you can actually make such binary with gcc...
No.
It only needs to be recompile when the compiler feels like it. If the perceived benefit of the newer library to link against is greater than the time and energy it takes to recompile and package a product, then the compiler won't do it.
If curl does a minor bump fixing a function that pacman doesn't even use for example, we then we probably wouldn't bother. Now if it was a critical update then yes, we would obviously do it.
Making this decision IS a maintainance effort...
there is a whole discussion on why static linking is good on http://sta.li
Calvin
-- Leonid Isaev GnuPG key: 0x164B5A6D Fingerprint: C0DF 20D0 C075 C3F1 E1BE 775A A7AE F6CB 164B 5A6D