On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 8:23 PM, Allan McRae <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Dan McGee wrote: >> This presents plenty of problems on OSes besides Linux, and even on Linux >> when the libtool file for libarchive isn't present. The static build isn't >> all that useful anyway as missing something such as glibc will still leave >> you unable to run the pacman.static binary. Remove it from the formal build >> process. >> > > I didn't realize that is was not very static. But is this not useful > for people who want to try and upgrade their really old systems? I > suppose if they can't get pacman going in the first place then they will > be reasonably screwed with the rest of the upgrade.
Yeah, I think it has always been one of those "I hope it works" type things. In any case, I think this is more appropriate for the pacman PKGBUILD if we truely want a static build, rather than in the pacman buildchain. If you really want to test the "screwing up" stuff, boot up Simo's live CD installer and do a pacman -R glibc, and see how functional the system is. You'll note that pacman.static is pretty bunk at that point. -Dan _______________________________________________ pacman-dev mailing list [email protected] http://archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/pacman-dev
