Help needed choosing / installing micromamba

There are a couple of different packages for micromamba in the AUR, which I realise does happen as different packagers may submit different versions. However the AUR only offers the packages as a list of what is available, there is little to no support to help someone choose the right one…

What I noticed, significantly, is that the “micromamba” package lists 16 dependencies whilst the “micromamba-bin” package has only one (glibc), yet they both claim to provide the same utility!

Putting my failure to understand the reason for the above discrepancies aside, my confusion is further enhanced given that the installation advice from the project’s documentation, and perhaps more notably an Arch User Guide article, suggest that no such package installation is required and the utility can be installed by downloading a Bash script file!

So which is the “correct” method to install this utility, and/or what is the difference between the packages and vs bash install script?

I don’t know anything about that package, and did not look, but the binary version is already compiled, the other version you need to compile.

  • micromamba (from AUR) must be built from source code; likewise the dependencies listed.
  • micromamba-bin (from AUR) is a binary package converted for use with Arch-based distributions. The -bin at the end of a package name usually indicates this. Dependencies are typically fewer as some may already be provided in the converted package; in this case dependencies include: glibc (glibc-gitAUR, glibc-linux4AUR, glibc-eacAUR, glibc-eac-binAUR).

Using the recommended script should install the same binary package as well as required dependencies:

From micromamba-releases (GitHub):

Notice that the Arch page you linked to also references that same script. So, you have two sources recommending the same method. I suggest you go with that; ultimately the choice is yours.


Ahh yes, I was aware that a “bin” (binary) package meant it was precompiled …
I guess I hadn’t made the connection that that is the reason for the differing number of dependencies :man_facepalming: sorry

@soundofthunder thanks, yes after some consideration I came to the same conclusion … best to use the referenced script file since it seems to be “from the source” rather than a 3rd-Party package.

Thanks so much!

That is because you need to know that by yourself.

Without knowing anything about the result of the mentioned build script - the correct method is to use a build script provided with AUR.

Whether or not the application can be run locally I cannot know.

If the application can be run without adding system libraries you may simply add it to your ~/.local/bin folder.

If however it has the need for adding system libraries and files - the recommended method is to use a PKGBUILD so the package manager can account for files added to the system /usr/ tree.

Examples of adding scripts

  • oh-my-bash customization
  • nvm package manager

There is more like those

Ahh yes – Arch’s (and by Proxy Manjaro’s) guiding tenet “This is the way”

It’s been so long since I delved in to PKGBUILD scripts and the like :grimacing:

I think in this case though I will use the ‘prescribed’ method and follow the reference guide and the source bash script, which if I’d have thought about it for long enough I would have done anyway.

Sorry if this post was a bit of a waste of time, just a panic reaction to too many choices and uncertainty … I might not have entirely forgotten how to ride this Linux bicycle, but I’m definitely a bit wobbly! :flushed:

Sincerely appreciate the help and advice offered here though, and the speed it’s provided too! – Thankyou

This topic was automatically closed 36 hours after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.