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

>> *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.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Reply via email to