>install package
>"this package requires jumbly"
>install jumbly
>"jumbly requires squirtsquirt"
>install squirtsquirt
>"squirtsquirt requires ToastCRumb"
>install ToastCrumb
>ToastCrumb not found
>install ToastCRumb
>"ToastCRumb requires Veiny"
>install Veiny
>"Veiny requires..."

nobody does this manually

>apt install frimbo
>the following packages will also be installed: gumgo pubbolo parappa-qt5 kekko_5.8
Simple as

>>105808795 (OP)
>install Windows

>>105808828
>It's perfectly normal for a package to pull in dependencies
>This is not frowned upon in society
>Install 3 packages
>Now have 2815822132 packages on the system
>This is totally fine and I am making up problems if I criticize that

>>105808923
>Now have 2815822132 packages on the system
>This is totally fine and I am making up problems if I criticize that

Correct

>>105808982
I don't get the reference.

Windows has all the packages pre-installed, that's why windows will always be superior to troonix

>>105808809
>he doesn't know about Slackware

>>105808795 (OP)
How long have you been sucking penis?

>>105808828
>sudo apt install frimbo
>the following packages will also be installed: jakoff, ickhead, mareecon
>error installing mareecon: rumba 4.20 not supported
>sudo apt update rumba
>error updating rumba: rumba 4.20 is deprecated. Use sudo apt install rumba 6
>sudo apt install rumba 6
>rumba 6 will delete the instance of rumba 4. Confirm? y/n
>y
>sudo apt install frimbo
>error installing jakoff: file …/rumba4/goackyourself.dll not found

>>105808795 (OP)
Idk bro

Sudo pacman -S ___________ works for me

>>105808923
If we don't do it this way then each program will bundle it's dependencies meaning you'll have multiple versions of the same thing on your PC managed by different programs.

I fucking despise dynamic linking

>>105808809
...and that's a problem. Write simpler software that doesn't depend on freetard slop.

>>105808923
Decline to install the package if you don't want its dependencies
You can't use the software without its dependencies regardless of whether you install them automatically or manually
At least the package manager lists them and asks for confirmation

>>105810513
>buys another 8TiB drive

>>105810282
that's ideal. nobody actually understands the difference between static and dynamic linking so they make up shit about security, bandwidth, or saving ram or disk space even though static linking was proven to be more secure, smaller, faster, more stable, and lighter on resources. sun microsystems who invented it even admitted it was pure garbage when they released it but said, "hey, it's what our retarded corporate tech-illiterate boomer customers wanted and we love taking their money so we gave them what they wanted." dynamic linking doesn't have a shred of evidence supporting it, just 40 year old marketing lies that get recited like gospel.

Ulrich Drepper did more damage to Linux than GNOME/Freedesktop/Lennart Poettering ever dreamed of.

>>105808795 (OP)
That's not how it has worked for over 20 years, with the exception of Slackware. This is how it actually works:
>install package
>The following packages will also be installed: jumbly, squirtsquirt, ToastCRumb, Veiny, ...
>Enter Y to confirm
>Installation successful

>>105808795 (OP)
>"this package requires CMake"
FUCK YOUUUU

>>105810646
>smaller
Static linking essentially copies the code from a library into the final executable, how would that not result in the binary being larger, often very significantly so?
>more secure
I guess that's debatable - when an exploit is found, dynamic linking allows you to just update the library instead of having to recompile everything. On the other hand, I guess dynamic linking could be more susceptible to supply chain attacks and potentially cause more damage if exploited
>lighter on resources
Is the performance overhead significant? I always assumed it would be fairly negligible