I’m talking about things like “python3-blabla” and “libsomething”. How bad would it be if nobody used these library-packages and everyone just added all kinds of libraries as part of an application’s package?
I’m talking about things like “python3-blabla” and “libsomething”. How bad would it be if nobody used these library-packages and everyone just added all kinds of libraries as part of an application’s package?
I’m not sure how consistent it is but the static binaries I have for btrfs-progs are about 2x larger than their dynamic counterparts. If you statically compile it only the functions actually used are included in the binary, so it really depends on how much of the library is used.
This is a good way to look at it. Anything using a GUI would have a far worse ratio. Imagine statically linking a KDE application. Even for us tiling WM users, statically linking even the barest-bone X program would be huge.
A reasonably statically linked system would probably be in the range you suggest: about 2x. All the GUI stuff would be dynamic, and even so that accounts for half an install size; more if you install a DE like Gnome or KDE; statically link all of the rest of the headless stuff and double its size, and it’s probably close.
What would kill you would be all of the scripted stuff. If you bundled the entire python vm for every python tool, it’s more than doubling the size.