# Build without BUILT_INS 5 messages from 2012-04-24 to 2012-04-25. Participants: Steven Penny, Junio C Hamano, Andreas Ericsson. Thread: https://gitlist.dev/t/30317 ## Steven Penny, 2012-04-24 02:19 Subject: Build without BUILT_INS Message-ID: URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/CAAXzdLVbqp-_9A%2BBwcOuiHi3A39gAJb7_NqANfhAfuK9-%2BiZ0g%40mail.gmail.com ``` I would like to build Git for Windows without the hard links in libexec/git-core I tried doing make install prefix=/c/git BUILT_INS= and I get this error install git.exe git-upload-pack.exe git-receive-pack.exe git-upload-archive.exe git-shell.exe git-cvsserver '/c/git/bin' install: cannot stat `git-receive-pack.exe': No such file or directory install: cannot stat `git-upload-archive.exe': No such file or directory make: *** [install] Error 1 Is there a way to build Git without the built-ins? Some discussion here http://github.com/msysgit/git/pull/4 ``` ## Junio C Hamano, 2012-04-24 02:42 Subject: Re: Build without BUILT_INS Message-ID: URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/xmqqmx61hmtu.fsf%40junio.mtv.corp.google.com In-Reply-To: ``` Steven Penny writes: > I would like to build Git for Windows without the hard links in libexec/git-core > > I tried doing > > make install prefix=/c/git BUILT_INS= > > and I get this error Unsurprising. What are you trying to do? Are you trying to build a git that does not know any of the built-in commands like "checkout", "commit", etc? Or do you still want a full-featured git, but because you know the code to perform "git foo" for any builtin command "foo" is contained in git executable itself, you want to "rm -f git-foo" from the filesystem? The latter is a bad idea to begin with, as it will break older scripts that trust the promise that by having git --exec-path early on the $PATH older forms "git-foo" will always work. If you really want to do so, the right way is not by mucking BUILT_INS to empty. I do not know how GfW is built, but if it uses our usual Makefile, find the place where it installs the git-foo forms of links after it installs the main git executable, and comment it out. And no, it will *not* be a compilation option, as the resulting installation will break the age-old promise we made to script writers. Good luck, and have fun. ``` ## Andreas Ericsson, 2012-04-24 08:32 Subject: Re: Build without BUILT_INS Message-ID: <4F96650E.7040900@op5.se> URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/4F96650E.7040900%40op5.se In-Reply-To: ``` On 04/24/2012 04:42 AM, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Steven Penny writes: > >> I would like to build Git for Windows without the hard links in libexec/git-core >> >> I tried doing >> >> make install prefix=/c/git BUILT_INS= >> >> and I get this error > > Unsurprising. > > What are you trying to do? Are you trying to build a git that does not > know any of the built-in commands like "checkout", "commit", etc? Or do > you still want a full-featured git, but because you know the code to > perform "git foo" for any builtin command "foo" is contained in git > executable itself, you want to "rm -f git-foo" from the filesystem? > > The latter is a bad idea to begin with, as it will break older scripts > that trust the promise that by having git --exec-path early on the $PATH > older forms "git-foo" will always work. > > If you really want to do so, the right way is not by mucking BUILT_INS > to empty. I do not know how GfW is built, but if it uses our usual > Makefile, find the place where it installs the git-foo forms of links > after it installs the main git executable, and comment it out. > > And no, it will *not* be a compilation option, as the resulting > installation will break the age-old promise we made to script writers. > Otoh, we did warn that we were going to deprecate the 'git-foo' form back in 2005 when the git wrapper was rewritten in C, so perhaps we should consider marking it as deprecated now so we can get rid of them altogether altogether in another seven years. ;) -- Andreas Ericsson andreas.ericsson@op5.se OP5 AB www.op5.se Tel: +46 8-230225 Fax: +46 8-230231 Considering the successes of the wars on alcohol, poverty, drugs and terror, I think we should give some serious thought to declaring war on peace. ``` ## Junio C Hamano, 2012-04-24 19:41 Subject: Re: Build without BUILT_INS Message-ID: URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/xmqqwr54gbo0.fsf%40junio.mtv.corp.google.com In-Reply-To: <4F96650E.7040900@op5.se> ``` Andreas Ericsson writes: > On 04/24/2012 04:42 AM, Junio C Hamano wrote: >> ... >> And no, it will *not* be a compilation option, as the resulting >> installation will break the age-old promise we made to script writers. > > Otoh, we did warn that we were going to deprecate the 'git-foo' form back > in 2005 when the git wrapper was rewritten in C, so perhaps we should > consider... We already discussed it and shot it down soon after 1.6.0 fiasco. http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/93511 Please do not drag me into that mess again. ``` ## Steven Penny, 2012-04-25 03:11 Subject: Re: Build without BUILT_INS Message-ID: URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/CAAXzdLXa_s4yDzV4HJk3dV1hYU1cekMXqcvEvoPcDrTm0tAyXQ%40mail.gmail.com In-Reply-To: ``` Junio C Hamano wrote: > And no, it will *not* be a compilation option, as the resulting > installation will break the age-old promise we made to script writers. A compilation option, does not break any promise to script writers. The default build still has hard links. A compilation option, such as "make NO_BUILTINS=1" would merely give users the choice to build without the hard links; an option they do _not_ have currently. Seeing how there already is NO_GETTEXT NO_OPENSSL NO_TCLTK and so on, I dont see this as being a big issue to add. ```