Hi Junio, On Mon, 9 Mar 2020, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@xxxxxx> writes: > > > On Fri, 6 Mar 2020, Junio C Hamano wrote: > > > >> What makes it possible by making "git bugreport" stand-alone is for > >> it to link with libraries that the remainder of Git, including the > >> transports that link with libcurl, has no business linking with (a > >> library to obtain system details for diagnostic purposes, for > >> example). > > > > That would, however, make `git-bugreport` more fragile than `git`, i.e. > > the former might fail to launch under more circumstances than the latter. > > That's a bug. You can go fix it when it happens. Heh... yeah, that would be a bug, and the user would not be able to report it via `git bugreport`... Which is the whole point of my complaint. Isn't it obvious that we should not have an independent `git-bugreport` by now? With a stand-alone `git-bugreport`, we might - fail to load the .so files under more circumstances than `git` would (since we link to `libgit.a`, we cannot have a subset of dependencies, only a superset, or the same), - launch a stale `git-bugreport` from a completely different Git, - make users angry for wasting 3MB of their diskspace for `git-bugreport` when only a dozen kilobyte would suffice. On the other hand, if we make `git-bugreport` a built-in, I cannot see any downsides. For me, therefore, having it as a built-in is a clear win. What am I missing? Ciao, Dscho
