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