Package Details: pandoc-bin 3.1.13-1

Git Clone URL: https://aur.archlinux.org/pandoc-bin.git (read-only, click to copy)
Package Base: pandoc-bin
Description: Pandoc - executable only, without 750MB Haskell depends/makedepends
Upstream URL: https://pandoc.org
Licenses: GPL2
Conflicts: pandoc-cli
Provides: pandoc, pandoc-cli
Submitter: cdkitching
Maintainer: gustawho
Last Packager: gustawho
Votes: 306
Popularity: 2.13
First Submitted: 2017-10-03 08:45 (UTC)
Last Updated: 2024-05-06 18:35 (UTC)

Dependencies (1)

Required by (320)

Sources (3)

Pinned Comments

cdkitching commented on 2023-09-22 09:07 (UTC)

Using this package will waste instead of save disk space if:

  • You're a haskell developer and need the shared libraries/compilers/etc. anyway.
  • You have >10 other statically-linked haskell packages around the same size as Pandoc (in which case you'll get a saving from making them all dynamically linked).

Neither of these scenarios is particularly likely.

Latest Comments

« First ‹ Previous 1 .. 4 5 6 7 8 9

bhrgunatha commented on 2017-06-27 02:23 (UTC)

Lots of AUR packages providing prebuilt binaries are named with a -bin suffix so pandoc-bin?

runical commented on 2017-06-26 15:07 (UTC) (edited on 2017-06-26 15:08 (UTC) by runical)

Take a look on the wiki: https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Arch_User_Repository#Other_requests Essentially, you should upload the PKGBUILD under a new name and then file a merge request to merge this package's comments and votes into the new package. As for building, there are some who prefer to build their own packages if possible. I personally prefer that to using binaries, but seeing how complex pandoc-static was, it might not be viable. As far as I can tell, there are no definitive advantages to building your own, but it does make sure that the package is built from the code you expect it to be built and against the correct dependencies. This should reveal problems before you use the binary.

cdkitching commented on 2017-06-26 14:48 (UTC)

Certainly reasonable suggestions for names. Is there a way to rename an AUR package? Is there an upside to building my own? I opted to do it this way to avoid having a gigabyte of makedepends.

runical commented on 2017-06-26 13:56 (UTC)

@cdkitching: Pandoc-static was indeed available, but it was made obsolete by the introduction of a statically linked pandoc in the repos. Hence, Fauno deleted the package. However, you should be able to get the package name by cloning pandoc-static. However, shouldn't the name be pandoc-bin, as you're just taking the executable provided by upstream? Static implies that you build the package locally, but statically linked.

cdkitching commented on 2017-06-25 20:43 (UTC)

Looks like you're right, joelongjimian. Let's do that.

joelongjiamian commented on 2017-06-25 20:39 (UTC) (edited on 2017-06-25 20:42 (UTC) by joelongjiamian)

That's not quite true; the total size once installed is still nontrivial. Here's the output from pacman -S pandoc-citeproc for me: resolving dependencies... looking for conflicting packages... Packages (59) ghc-8.0.2-1 haskell-aeson-1.1.2.0-6 haskell-aeson-pretty-0.8.5-2 (etc) Total Download Size: 52.25 MiB Total Installed Size: 544.46 MiB Net Upgrade Size: 493.11 MiB As far as I can tell most of this comes from ghc. In any case, it appears that pandoc-citeproc is also provided by the debian package, so I guess it might be easier to add a package_pandoc-citeproc() to your PKGBUILD.

cdkitching commented on 2017-06-25 20:07 (UTC)

The -static name was already taken by a defunct package. That was the first thing I tried...

cdkitching commented on 2017-06-25 20:06 (UTC)

Pandoc-citeproc in community pulls in a much smaller set of Haskell packages, so doing this for that package saves you only around 50MB, rather than the 700 you get from this

Alad commented on 2017-06-25 14:27 (UTC) (edited on 2017-06-25 14:36 (UTC) by Alad)

Could you please give it some meaningful name instead of the nonsensical "lite"... i.e. pandoc-static, pandoc-bin, pandoc-hackage, etc.

joelongjiamian commented on 2017-06-25 12:39 (UTC)

any plans for pandoc-citeproc too? same thing happened to that

« First ‹ Previous 1 .. 4 5 6 7 8 9