3 ms·

I really wanted to like tup, but I feel like it's just missing to many 'basic' things, along with being a bit annoying to setup and use. The big thing for me is

by DSMan195276 9y ago

I really wanted to like tup, but I feel like it's just missing to many 'basic' things, along with being a bit annoying to setup and use. The big thing for me is that there is no `tup clean`, and also no way to create phony targets or multiple targets like with `make` - and they're not excluded because of complexity reasons, but because they just don't think it should be the job of the build system [0]. Which, they might be right, but if I can't actually replace my full Makefile's with Tupfiles, but instead have to replace it with Tupfiles + Makefile/shellscripts/installscripts/etc. then Tup is a lot less appealing to me. This is especially an issue since the scripts have no way of accessing the Tup information. With that said, I was curious how this project got around the 'install' problem, but it seems like they were largely able to just side-step the issue. They build an `initrd` from tup, and the `initrd` Tupfile copies all of the compiled executables into their proper folders before generating the `initrd`. So the projects themselves can't install themselves directly onto a system. [0] https://groups.google.com/d/msg/tup-users/Kxw1nnXK12o/my4IYt8OnzsJ https://groups.google.com/d/msg/tup-users/Kxw1nnXK12o/my4IYt...

ComputerGuru 9y ago
I agree with you, it's not there yet. It's the same problem over and over again with all these Make alternatives: close but if only xxx or if only not yyy. I agree that the installation approach is a total copout, I would have hardlinked all the files from their installation destination to the build artifacts. (presuming state is intended to be thrown away on rebuild.)
- DSMan195276 9y ago
  I think what bugs me the most is that `tup` has been around for years now (The v0.1 release was in 2009), and it is almost exactly what I want - it keeps a very similar setup to `make`, but much better support for the stuff `make` makes a bit painful to do. If it had support for `tup clean` and for defining phony targets like `install` I would likely be using Tupfiles for all of my projects.
  - rkangel 9y ago
    For what use case do you need to perform a 'clean'? Every time I have needed to clean a Makefile based project it has been due to imperfections of the build system, i.e. needing to do a full rebuild. In theory (I've never used tup in anger) you should never need to do that with tup because the dependecy gathering is so robust.
    - dilap 9y ago
      maybe you want to time a rebuild, maybe somehow something outside of tup's knowledge changed, maybe you want to tar the directory w/o build artifacts, maybe you simply need to quickly free up some hd space, &c &c
  - jdonaldson 9y ago
    It's extremely unlikely that Tup provides a "clean" command. They've expressed a philosophical opposition to it on a few occasions: https://github.com/gittup/tup/issues/120 https://github.com/gittup/tup/issues/120 They're make a really clear distinction between a build system, and a build support system. The "clean" command falls into build support, and the Tup team would argue this is better served with techniques like "git clean -xdf" The "make clean" command is not perfect. Even if someone writes this make phase correctly, it may break after you sync new makefile changes on a dirty project dir. What do you do in that case?
    - dilap 9y ago
      but tup tracks what it built, so a clean command would come for free and in fact be reliable!
      - justhelpingout 9y ago
        In fact it is: sqlite3 .tup/db 'select name from node where type=4' | xargs echo rm -f [1]: https://github.com/gittup/tup/issues/120#issuecomment-64832104

ComputerGuru 9y ago

I agree with you, it's not there yet. It's the same problem over and over again with all these Make alternatives: close but if only xxx or if only not yyy. I agree that the installation approach is a total copout, I would have hardlinked all the files from their installation destination to the build artifacts. (presuming state is intended to be thrown away on rebuild.)

DSMan195276 9y ago
I think what bugs me the most is that `tup` has been around for years now (The v0.1 release was in 2009), and it is almost exactly what I want - it keeps a very similar setup to `make`, but much better support for the stuff `make` makes a bit painful to do. If it had support for `tup clean` and for defining phony targets like `install` I would likely be using Tupfiles for all of my projects.
- rkangel 9y ago
  For what use case do you need to perform a 'clean'? Every time I have needed to clean a Makefile based project it has been due to imperfections of the build system, i.e. needing to do a full rebuild. In theory (I've never used tup in anger) you should never need to do that with tup because the dependecy gathering is so robust.
  - dilap 9y ago
    maybe you want to time a rebuild, maybe somehow something outside of tup's knowledge changed, maybe you want to tar the directory w/o build artifacts, maybe you simply need to quickly free up some hd space, &c &c
- jdonaldson 9y ago
  It's extremely unlikely that Tup provides a "clean" command. They've expressed a philosophical opposition to it on a few occasions: https://github.com/gittup/tup/issues/120 https://github.com/gittup/tup/issues/120 They're make a really clear distinction between a build system, and a build support system. The "clean" command falls into build support, and the Tup team would argue this is better served with techniques like "git clean -xdf" The "make clean" command is not perfect. Even if someone writes this make phase correctly, it may break after you sync new makefile changes on a dirty project dir. What do you do in that case?
  - dilap 9y ago
    but tup tracks what it built, so a clean command would come for free and in fact be reliable!
    - justhelpingout 9y ago
      In fact it is: sqlite3 .tup/db 'select name from node where type=4' | xargs echo rm -f [1]: https://github.com/gittup/tup/issues/120#issuecomment-64832104