Re:“Shared libraries are not a good thing in general”
by alex_smart on Sunday May 02, 2021 @11:44AM
(#27016216)
>Megabytes more?
Megabytes more in total, or megabytes more per binary?
> On this disk, about 15% of it is executables, and I have a lot of crap in my executable directory and just deleted a lot of junk data.
Is there any study on how this might change if we moved from dlls to statically linking everything?
> no one's seriously proposing that core libraries that everyone uses be statically linked
If we agree that shared libraries are fine for the common case, and there are n number of existing solutions for distributing applications with tricky dependencies, what are we even talking about in this thread? :\
Re:“Shared libraries are not a good thing in general”
by gpm on Monday May 03, 2021 @10:15AM
(#27025341)
> Is there any study on how this might change if we moved from dlls to statically linking everything?
Drew Devault did an informal one https://drewdevault.com/dynlib.html
TL;DR - not at all substantially.
This is a very edgy edge case, though.
> How much disk space would linux userland require if every binary was to be statically linked?
Megabytes more?
I have never been on a project or a machine since the 70s where executables took a majority of the disk space. On this disk, about 15% of it is executables, and I have a lot of crap in my executable directory and just deleted a lot of junk data.
Also, no one's seriously proposing that core libraries that everyone uses be statically linked.