Dan McGee wrote: > 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. >
But other programs could use them if they are part of the pacman package ... >> (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). Surely, if pacman.static is included in the pacman package in any case, this package must necessarily be updated when one of these libraries is updated? > In addition, they are > now part of [core] so will be installed on all future systems. > Yes, of course, I was only thinking of the transition. _______________________________________________ arch mailing list [email protected] http://archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/arch
