On 3 August 2012 12:29, Leonid Isaev <lisaev@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, 3 Aug 2012 10:31:06 -0400 > Jack Silver <jacksilver045@xxxxxxxxx> 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. That might work for a > rescue (read embedded-like system with ulibc) system, but probably booting > from a live media is much easier and more robust. > > -- > Leonid Isaev > GnuPG key: 0x164B5A6D > Fingerprint: C0DF 20D0 C075 C3F1 E1BE 775A A7AE F6CB 164B 5A6D Meh it does have it's advantages. I've screwed up my system to a point where I can't use pacman (because the libraries it depends on have gone wild). Having a staticly compiled pacman would allow for me to use it no matter what. LiveCD is not always easier.... Calvin
