I succeeded compiling with static linking the last version of lyx (1.1.5). Here is the size data: dynamic linking 1,528,800 static linking 2,529,308 The hard disk did not explode and I have a stable executable which I can use without having to cross the fingers at the next upgrade of my system. Is this correct ?
So, on one example, you have increased the size of the binary by 40%. This doesn't look right. Did you ensure you were statically linking libc? I suspect not (I don't even have a libc.a on my system - do you?) My libc6 shared object is about 4MB, so you have to add 4MB to each executable on your system. Hmmm... from my SuSE-6.4 system (which runs GNOME with KFM and several other KDE apps): /bin: 102 files in 6888K /usr/bin: 1455 files in 108760K /usr/X11R6/bin: 434 files in 38748K /opt/kde/bin: 462 files in 80708K /opt/gnome/bin: 196 files in 80868K So, my basic set of executables takes around 320MB. If I increase that by 40%, that's nearly 150MB extra disk space. OK the disk won't explode, but it's a reasonable chunk. If I statically link the 4MB libc file to each of my 2650 executables, that's another 10.5GB I need in order to store them. That might cause my 9GB disk to explode. More important to me is memory. My current system is running GNOME and is pretty much idle. It has 80 processes running. If they each had statically linked libraries each one would be about 5MB minimum - the X ones would be several times that. So, even without X, that's 400MB of RAM just to hold the executables on an idle system. If you want to run with statically linked binaries, you've got the source, so you go ahead. But this is an advance I could do without. -- To unsubscribe send e-mail to suse-linux-e-unsubscribe@suse.com For additional commands send e-mail to suse-linux-e-help@suse.com Also check the FAQ at http://www.suse.com/Support/Doku/FAQ/