[arch-general] Build pacman statically

[Calvin Morrison]

On 3 August 2012 13:03, Leonid Isaev <lisaev at umail.iu.edu> wrote:
> On Fri, 3 Aug 2012 11:35:10 -0500
> Sander Jansen <s.jansen at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 11:29 AM, Leonid Isaev <lisaev at umail.iu.edu> wrote:
>> > On Fri, 3 Aug 2012 10:31:06 -0400
>> > Jack Silver <jacksilver045 at 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.

there is a whole discussion on why static linking is good on http://sta.li

Calvin