On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 7:04 PM, Junio C Hamano <gits...@pobox.com> wrote: > 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.
That's not what John Keeping said. I'm going to assume he was wrong, but I don't think that's relevant for my point. Either way, the meaning of builtin/ should probably be explained somewhere. >> 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. But init_copy_notes_for_rewrite() can *not* be used by anything other than git builtins. Standalone binaries will never use such a function, therefore it doesn't belong in libgit.a. Another example is alias_lookup(). They belong in builtin/lib.a.  http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/227017 -- Felipe Contreras -- 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