4 ms·

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

by 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
    - dilap 9y ago
      so silly this isn't included because of philosophical objections. tup is in some ways brilliant, and i give it kudos for actually improving on make in many ways (unlike 99% of the make-replacement-hopefuls), but man oh man do i value and prefer software devs with a more user-focused philosophy. (an excellent example of that would be homebrew, which arguably wasn't anything special from a pure-tech perspective, but had amazingly good product sense/user focus. imagine combining that attitude & ux skills w/ the technical brilliance of tup...)
- DSMan195276 9y ago
  I understand it's not going to happen - I linked one such conversation in my first comment. I think the reasoning is silly (His definitions might be "right", but he's the only one using those definitions), but I'm not arguing with them about it. And I agree that `make clean` isn't perfect, I think that is what makes the fact that `tup clean` doesn't exist even more annoying. A lot of people recommend including an auxiliary Makefile or script to do the cleaning, but it can never be as good as if `tup` just did it itself since it is aware of exactly what files it as created during the build process.

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
  - dilap 9y ago
    so silly this isn't included because of philosophical objections. tup is in some ways brilliant, and i give it kudos for actually improving on make in many ways (unlike 99% of the make-replacement-hopefuls), but man oh man do i value and prefer software devs with a more user-focused philosophy. (an excellent example of that would be homebrew, which arguably wasn't anything special from a pure-tech perspective, but had amazingly good product sense/user focus. imagine combining that attitude & ux skills w/ the technical brilliance of tup...)
DSMan195276 9y ago
I understand it's not going to happen - I linked one such conversation in my first comment. I think the reasoning is silly (His definitions might be "right", but he's the only one using those definitions), but I'm not arguing with them about it. And I agree that `make clean` isn't perfect, I think that is what makes the fact that `tup clean` doesn't exist even more annoying. A lot of people recommend including an auxiliary Makefile or script to do the cleaning, but it can never be as good as if `tup` just did it itself since it is aware of exactly what files it as created during the build process.