You are not logged in.
Hey guys, first posting here. My problem is that i want to install each pacman package for the specific user that run the pacman command, and of course still be able to install system-wide packages.
e.g. i have a user X in my computer, lets say that user X want to install a package that may affect the whole system. In this case, if the packages are only availabe on the user X home or something like that, it wont be able to harm the system. Is it possible to use pacman like that?
EDIT: I think the linux containers can do the job, i'll update this when i finish the tests.
Last edited by buxfox (2018-11-27 13:50:25)
Offline
Welcome to the arch linux forums buxfox. No pacman packages are not relocatable and are installed in a fixed location relative to a give root and expect all dependencies to be at fixed locations relative to the same root.
I would suggest looking into containers or virtual machines to give you the ability to install different package sets without affecting the installation on bare metal.
Last edited by loqs (2018-11-27 00:09:11)
Offline
Sorry i forgot to mention that VMs are not good enough. I'll read about there Linux Containers.
Offline
Can you elaborate on why you'd want to do this? There may be good reasons, but this also sounds like it may be an X-Y problem for which there could be a far better solution.
"UNIX is simple and coherent" - Dennis Ritchie; "GNU's Not Unix" - Richard Stallman
Offline
I don't like to have a system with a lot of packages that i dont know what they do. If i have a specific user on my pc to do tests and dont harm the system it will be good, thats why i asked if the pacman package manager could install per-user packages. VMs isnt a really good option right now, so now i'm learning the lxc to use Linux Containers.
Offline
No package installed from the repos should "harm the system" in any way. If you are testing out packages that you are not sure you'll want to keep, you can just remove them again with pacman. What kind of harm are you trying to avoid?
"UNIX is simple and coherent" - Dennis Ritchie; "GNU's Not Unix" - Richard Stallman
Offline
The "harm the system" example was a bad one. There are personal motivation that i don't know how to explain, what i was wanting to do is what i said in the first post, create a user that all the packages installed with pacman will be installed locally.
Offline
The "harm the system" example was a bad one. There are personal motivation that i don't know how to explain, what i was wanting to do is what i said in the first post, create a user that all the packages installed with pacman will be installed locally.
It's worth taking the time to write an explanation. As Trilby has already mentioned, this sounds like an XY Problem, which is probably best solved in another manner than what you're specifically asking for.
Allan-Volunteer on the (topic being discussed) mailn lists. You never get the people who matters attention on the forums.
jasonwryan-Installing Arch is a measure of your literacy. Maintaining Arch is a measure of your diligence. Contributing to Arch is a measure of your competence.
Griemak-Bleeding edge, not bleeding flat. Edge denotes falls will occur from time to time. Bring your own parachute.
Offline
As i said before, i want to to exacly what i said in the example, nothing else, not a X-Y problem.
Offline
You might want to look into chroot or jails and install "suspicious" packages in them.
Last edited by Lone_Wolf (2018-11-27 13:07:45)
Disliking systemd intensely, but not satisfied with alternatives so focusing on taming systemd.
clean chroot building not flexible enough ?
Try clean chroot manager by graysky
Offline
You might want to look into chroot or jails and install "suspicious" packages in them.
I'm trying to create a Linux Container, i think that will be the answer for my problem. Thank you all for the replies.
Offline
e.g. i have a user X in my computer, lets say that user X want to install a package that may affect the whole system. In this case, if the packages are only availabe on the user X home or something like that, it wont be able to harm the system.
The "harm the system" example was a bad one.
There are personal motivation that i don't know how to explain
i want to to exacly what i said in the example, nothing else, not a X-Y problem
This is about the textbook definition of an xy-problem. You cannot even explain what you want but expect somebody else to tell you what to do to get what you want.
If you think that sentence sounds nuts: yes. Precisely.
In any event: installing something out of path is not going to prevent it from "harming" the system or whatever you fail to explain to be worried about.
So maybe try harder to explain what you actually want - because installing out of path is by all provided evidence NOT what you want.
Offline
As i said before, i want to to exacly what i said in the example, nothing else, not a X-Y problem.
In that case, the answer is simple: No, what you ask for simply cannot be done with pacman. Period. Please mark the thread as SOLVED.
This really is the only honest and direct answer to the specific question you asked. Many of us were giving you the benefit of the doubt and figuring there was some reason you wanted to do this and we further assumed that there are very likely good ways to satisfy those needs that are slightly different than what you are currently thinking. But if you insist that this thread should not be about those alternative solutions, then there is simply nothing more to do here.
Last edited by Trilby (2018-11-27 13:47:00)
"UNIX is simple and coherent" - Dennis Ritchie; "GNU's Not Unix" - Richard Stallman
Offline
I already explained what i want, i just don't know how to explain why i want to do that. I already know that pacman doesnt allow that, so i'm trying to configure a Linux Container.
Offline
I already explained what i want... I already know that pacman doesnt allow that
So you asked a direct question for which you wanted a direct answer which you have recieved. Mark the thread as SOLVED.
Last edited by Trilby (2018-11-27 13:48:12)
"UNIX is simple and coherent" - Dennis Ritchie; "GNU's Not Unix" - Richard Stallman
Offline
Okay, again thanks for all the help.
Offline