On Mon, 2024-07-22 at 09:29 +0200, David Runge wrote:
> Hi all,
> ...
> have to use an installation media or static pacman to get back to
> 3.0.0-1.
> ...
> David
>
Hey David - no worries these kind of things happen on occasion and it
was only in testing, where users of which should mostly know how to
recover from an occasional issue cropping up.
It does bring up a question and am interested how you think about it.
While pretty rare, there certainly can be occasions where an official
static pacman could be pretty helpful to have.
Its fairly non-trivial to build a static pacman since we don't have
archive libs readily available for the 38 packages it depends on (at
least that I can see).
I wonder given the build tooling if :
a) providing static pacman package would be a possibility?
or
b) provding 'archive' lib packages might be doable
e.g. glibc-archive, openssl-archive, gpgme-archive ...
Both seem painful:
- (a) means either do (b) first or build archive versions of all 38
shared libs as part of pacman build. The latter approach is one taken
by the AUR package.
- (b) means changing the PKGBUILD of quite a lot of packages - and
if we go this route then should it be done for other lib packages as
well?
Pro: While it's rarely needed it could be very useful.
i.e. Protect against a Low frequency but high impact risk.
Con: - A lot of work - is it worthwhile doing?
- Can always boot install media for non-remote systems or use AUR
package
- its a lot of work for very small gain.
thank you for all the work you and other devs/package managers do to
keep Arch "-The-" stellar distro!
--
Gene
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
