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
