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

From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Jun 11, 2013, 00:04 UTC
Message-ID: <7v4nd5ecmy.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>
In-Reply-To: <CAMP44s1HM0zFvkGmaHrX2Wq2JSzDNk8uwNSz3bNo12eWxDcL8A@mail.gmail.com>

Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com> writes:

Show 6 quoted lines

>> *1* ... which is a very reasonable thing to do.  But moving
>>     sequencer.o to builtin/sequencer.o is *not* the way to do this.
>
> By now we all know what is the *CURRENT* way to do this; in other
> words, the status quo, which is BTW all messed up, because builtin/*.o
> objects depend on each other already.

builtin/*.o are allowed to depend on each other. They are by definition builtins, meant to be linked into a single binary.

> We are discussing the way it *SHOULD* be. Why aren't you leaning on that?

And I do not see the reason why builtin/*.o should not depend on each other. It is not messed up at all. They are meant to be linked into a single binary---that is what being "built-in" is.

A good way forward, the way it *SHOULD* be, is to slim the builtin/*.o by moving parts that do not have to be in the single "git" binary but are also usable in standalone binaries out of them.

And that is what I just suggested.