I'm not against linking libc statically, but the reason I brought that up is to preempt a counterargument I always see: what happens if a security vulnerability is found in libc, and just about every single program needs to be recompiled?

My response is either (A) so what, go ahead, it's worth the complexity tradeoff for static binaries, but also (B) you can link a tiny handful of core system libraries dynamically, and still reap most of the simplicity benefits of static linking.

The latter approach solves the OpenGL problem too. If there are real cases where users would need to swap that out, go ahead and link it dynamically. The goal needn't to remove all dependencies, but to avoid the quagmire of hundreds (or more) of nested dependencies.