Re: Reducing git size by building libgit.so

[Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>]

Paul Smith <paul@mad-scientist.net> writes:

> I assumed that we were discussing providing an _option_ of building
> with shared libraries, rather than removing support for static
> libraries and only supporting shared libraries.  The former is the
> typical model in portable projects.
> ...
> So, the answer to most of the (important) issues you and Brian raise
> is, "if it doesn't work, can't be made to work, is too slow, or is
> annoying for ANY other reason, then don't do it".
>
> Regarding things like publish-ability of the API, I don't know what
> else to say.  It's FOSS, after all: anyone can do whatever they want
> (with respect to building and using the code) regardless of the desires
> of the development team.  All you can do is make clear that the intent
> is that the API is not stable, and if they don't listen and their stuff
> breaks, well, as the saying goes, they get to keep both halves.  Not
> adding any header files to the installation rules and packages is also
> helpful :).
>
> There's a certain amount of cold, hard reality that every FOSS project,
> regardless of how friendly and welcoming they aspire to be, simply
> can't avoid while still making progress (and staying sane).
>
>
> I certainly don't want to minimize the amount of work involved here,
> nor do I want to in any way volunteer myself to undertake any of it: as
> I said, I don't have strong feelings about it.
>
> I'm just saying, there's no technical reason it can't be done while
> maintaining the same features (such as relocatability) as the static
> library installs, at least on the major platforms.
>
> Cheers!