On 06/26/2017 02:45 AM, Óscar García Amor wrote:
Hello all,
Some days ago the pandoc mantainer [1] do a rebuild of it [2] where add a lot of haskell package dependencies. I think that the build changes the binary from statically linked to dinamically linked, but IMHO, I prefer the static one (55,08 MiB of package) over the dinamic (more than 666 MB in libraries).
What do you think about this?
Other solution can be have other package "pandoc-static", that maintains the previous method of package.
Greetings.
[1]: https://www.archlinux.org/packages/community/x86_64/pandoc/ [2]: https://git.archlinux.org/svntogit/community.git/commit/trunk?h=packages/pandoc&id=d340c92f8cf5686509551c08bcdaa0b5e66760b0
And same with shellcheck -- the general issue is that *all* haskell-based packages now build dynamically linked against the haskell runtime (which is huge, and few people have more than one or two packages that need it). https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=227621 https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=227477 https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=227574 https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/54564 https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/54590 https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/54588 https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/54580 Seems like the official response is "just live with it, no one cares what you say". Which, to be fair, has some justification in that technically speaking, statically-compiled haskell programs were an ugly bug. It's just a pity haskell is such a terribly bloated ecosystem. :p That being said, there are pandoc-lite and shellcheck-static packages in the AUR which use upstream's prebuilt binaries and don't require the whole haskell ecosystem as a dependency. Which seems fairly reasonable to me. -- Eli Schwartz