On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 10:12 AM, John Keeping <j...@keeping.me.uk> wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 09, 2013 at 08:26:32PM +0530, Ramkumar Ramachandra wrote:
>> Felipe Contreras wrote:
>> > The plan is simple; make libgit.a a proper library, starting by
>> > clarifying what goes into libgit.a, and what doesn't. If there's any
>> > hopes of ever having a public library, it's clear what code doesn't
>> > belong in libgit.a; code that is meant for builtins, that code belongs
>> > in builtins/lib.a, or similar.
>> >
>> > Give this a try:
>> >
>> > --- a/sequencer.c
>> > +++ b/sequencer.c
>> >
>> > libgit.a(sequencer.o): In function `copy_notes':
>> > /home/felipec/dev/git/sequencer.c:110: undefined reference to
>> > `init_copy_notes_for_rewrite'
>> > /home/felipec/dev/git/sequencer.c:114: undefined reference to
>> > `finish_copy_notes_for_rewrite'
>>
>> This is a good example: yes, I'm convinced that the code does need to
>> be reorganized. Please resend your {sequencer.c ->
>> builtin/sequencer.c} patch with this example as the rationale, and
>> let's work towards improving libgit.a.
>
> Why should sequencer.c move into builtin/ to solve this? Why not pull
> init_copy_notes_for_rewrite and finish_copy_notes_for_rewrite up into
> notes.c?
Because finish_copy_notes_for_rewrite is only useful for builtin
commands, so it belongs in builtin/. If there's any meaning to the
./*.o vs. builtin/*.o divide, it's for that. Otherwise we should just
squash all objects into libgit.a and be done with it.
--
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
