It may be a bit late 'n' all that (I'm a slow thinker sometimes), but: (a) Is there any really good reason why these not very big packages which have to be installed on an Archlinux system anyway or else pacman won't work shouldn't be part of the pacman package? O.K. you can update pacman without touching the libraries, but this could be postponed for a few months if you really want that, couldn't it?
(b) Is there any good reason why pacman is at all supplied dynamically linked as the statically linked version is in there too? One could have a static-only pacman and supply theses libraries separately for anyone who wants them. _______________________________________________ arch mailing list [email protected] http://archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/arch
