You are not logged in.
- Topics: Active | Unanswered
Pages: 1
#1 2021-03-07 19:00:00
- josemaria.alkala
- Member
- Registered: 2012-12-07
- Posts: 34
Suggestion - pacman static
From time to time, I get a bad status on my system. It doesn't happen often and I manage to recover the system always. But it is bit hard to solve, probably harder than it should.
I had a few times a problem where I was unable to update the system because `pacman` was unable to reach the appropriate version of `glibc` or `alpm`. To solve it I normally enter to the system using an USB and chrooting. Today I had that problem again. I started looking for an appimage, but it was actually easier than that. I manage to download a statically compiled version of pacman.
I wonder why that is not the default version of pacman installed in the system. Is there a technical reason for not doing so?
Offline
#2 2021-03-07 20:06:38
- GaKu999
- Member
- From: US/Eastern
- Registered: 2020-06-21
- Posts: 696
Re: Suggestion - pacman static
Haven’t seen such breakages in two years, are they common or I am missing something here?
Statically compiled is usually bigger and quite redundant In a normal system, thus that is why it’s reachable for emergencies and not bundled by default...
Offline
#3 2021-03-07 20:22:30
- Slithery
- Administrator
- From: Norfolk, UK
- Registered: 2013-12-01
- Posts: 5,776
Re: Suggestion - pacman static
Haven’t seen such breakages in two years, are they common or I am missing something here?
You're not missing anything. Such breakages only occur when users don't follow the rules and perform partial upgrades.
Offline
#4 2021-03-07 23:07:00
- WorMzy
- Administrator
- From: Scotland
- Registered: 2010-06-16
- Posts: 12,488
- Website
Re: Suggestion - pacman static
Arch doesn't ship static libs because they're a security nightmare, and since late 2013 static libs have been removed from Arch packages by default, unless they don't have a dynamic counterpart. In order to build pacman with static libs, someone would have to build all the dependencies of pacman to get the static libs, then build the pacman binary using those. There's an AUR package for people who really want to go down that route:pacman-static. It's even maintained by a TU.
Mod note: not an installation issue, moving to Arch Discussion.
Sakura:-
Mobo: MSI MAG X570S TORPEDO MAX // Processor: AMD Ryzen 9 5950X @4.9GHz // GFX: AMD Radeon RX 5700 XT // RAM: 32GB (4x 8GB) Corsair DDR4 (@ 3000MHz) // Storage: 1x 3TB HDD, 6x 1TB SSD, 2x 120GB SSD, 1x 275GB M2 SSD
Making lemonade from lemons since 2015.
Offline
#5 2021-03-08 18:55:21
- josemaria.alkala
- Member
- Registered: 2012-12-07
- Posts: 34
Re: Suggestion - pacman static
Thanks for the responses. Yeah I know this is my bad.
In any case, I was't meaning everything being static. I meant that in particular, I think that it makes sense pacman being self contained binary.
I took the binaries from pacman-static (which are about 5Mb only) and that save me A LOT of effort.
Offline
#6 2021-03-08 19:53:26
- Maniaxx
- Member
- Registered: 2014-05-14
- Posts: 757
Re: Suggestion - pacman static
Another Grub entry to boot up a local Arch ISO is a nice backup for such cases (costs: 680MB).
sys2064
Offline
#7 2021-03-08 19:56:57
- Slithery
- Administrator
- From: Norfolk, UK
- Registered: 2013-12-01
- Posts: 5,776
Re: Suggestion - pacman static
Another Grub entry to boot up a local Arch ISO is a nice backup for such cases (costs: 680MB).
Why waste the space and have to update the ISO every month? Just set up a netboot EFI entry that downloads and runs the latest install media from tinternet every time you launch it (<1MB).
Offline
Pages: 1