On 5/10/07, Michael Towers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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?
So other programs are able to use them as well without duplication on the system. > (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. So they can be updated for bugfixes and the like without pacman being affected (this has happened for libdownload). In addition, they are now part of [core] so will be installed on all future systems. -Dan _______________________________________________ arch mailing list [email protected] http://archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/arch
