Nathan Coulson wrote: > On Sat, Sep 3, 2011 at 5:28 PM, Andrew Benton <[email protected]> wrote:
>> It's just moving code from on place to another. Pkg-config gets smaller >> by the size of the code moved to libpopt.so. >> >> I like shared libraries and as I use rsync I think installing popt is a >> good idea. > when I said bloat, I am assuming that pkg-config has a static version of > popt compiled into it. the .so is 167kb unstripped, 48kb stripped. (don't > have a static one to compare to). so as is, that's 48kb of bloat. > (trivial) > > I prefer dynamic to static myself, but I would want more gain then a single > dynamically linked executable when adding a package to the book > > Note: I've always ended up installing libpopt myself, nothing against it. When I mentioned bloat, I wasn't referring to the size of the binaries/libraries. 150K is pretty trivial. I was referring to the number of packages in the book. Of course we are not trying for a minimal system. There are several packages we could remove if that was the goal. What we have now is a moderate set of packages. We've recently had to add libpipeline and a little further back, gmp, mpfr, and mpc. I would prefer to avoid package creep, especially for something as trivial and little used as popt. -- Bruce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
