Re: [PATCH] build: get rid of the notion of a git library

> On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 10:12 AM, John Keeping <john@keeping.me.uk> wrote:
>> On Sun, Jun 09, 2013 at 08:26:32PM +0530, Ramkumar Ramachandra wrote:
>>> Felipe Contreras wrote:
>>>> The plan is simple; make libgit.a a proper library, starting by
>>>> clarifying what goes into libgit.a, and what doesn't. If there's any
>>>> hopes of ever having a public library, it's clear what code doesn't
>>>> belong in libgit.a; code that is meant for builtins, that code belongs
>>>> in builtins/lib.a, or similar.
>>>>
>>>> Give this a try:
>>>>
>>>> --- a/sequencer.c
>>>> +++ b/sequencer.c
>>>>
>>>> libgit.a(sequencer.o): In function `copy_notes':
>>>> /home/felipec/dev/git/sequencer.c:110: undefined reference to
>>>> `init_copy_notes_for_rewrite'
>>>> /home/felipec/dev/git/sequencer.c:114: undefined reference to
>>>> `finish_copy_notes_for_rewrite'
>>> This is a good example: yes, I'm convinced that the code does need to
>>> be reorganized.  Please resend your {sequencer.c ->
>>> builtin/sequencer.c} patch with this example as the rationale, and
>>> let's work towards improving libgit.a.
>> Why should sequencer.c move into builtin/ to solve this?  Why not pull
>> init_copy_notes_for_rewrite and finish_copy_notes_for_rewrite up into
>> notes.c?
> Because finish_copy_notes_for_rewrite is only useful for builtin
> commands, so it belongs in builtin/. If there's any meaning to the
> ./*.o vs. builtin/*.o divide, it's for that. Otherwise we should just
> squash all objects into libgit.a and be done with it.
>