3 ms·

> This is trivially solved by having "install.sh" > There are also various limitations, caveats, &c. such that I typically had a "build.sh" or some-such that d

> This is trivially solved by having "install.sh" > There are also various limitations, caveats, &c. such that I typically had a "build.sh" or some-such that did any necessary pre-tup work. Frankly if I need to write custom wrapper scripts for a build system then the build system isn't up to scratch. On every project I work on, you can run make list To get a list of targets, and build/install/predeps/deploy are all defined. On any of of our projects, make predeps && make build will output a deployable binary. > Calculating this outside of tup is fine even if it's expensive, as long as it changes rarely. So no include files? That's another deal-breaker!

dkersten 4y ago
> So no include files? Huh? This definitely does work with Tup as expected.
drothlis 4y ago
> So no include files? That's another deal-breaker! Tup monitors any files that are read while the build command is running, and implicitly adds them as dependencies.
aidenn0 4y ago
Include files are fine; in fact tup automatically handles that for static headers (i.e. header files that aren't generated as part of the build process). One example of what I'm talking about is what another commentor mentioned: .java files will generate separate .class files for each inner-class in the file, so given "foo.java" you can't tell which .class files will be output when compiling "foo.java" without looking at the contents of "foo.java" I actually originally had a Makefile with predeps/build/install targets where the "build" step just called tup. People complained that "if tup is supposed to replace make, why are you using make?" I switched it to predeps.sh/build.sh/install.sh and everybody shut up. I personally think it's less ergonomic but don't care enough to argue with a different person every week.
- maccard 4y ago
  > I personally think it's less ergonomic but don't care enough to argue with a different person every week. I'm with you here!

dkersten 4y ago

> So no include files? Huh? This definitely does work with Tup as expected.

drothlis 4y ago

> So no include files? That's another deal-breaker! Tup monitors any files that are read while the build command is running, and implicitly adds them as dependencies.

aidenn0 4y ago

Include files are fine; in fact tup automatically handles that for static headers (i.e. header files that aren't generated as part of the build process). One example of what I'm talking about is what another commentor mentioned: .java files will generate separate .class files for each inner-class in the file, so given "foo.java" you can't tell which .class files will be output when compiling "foo.java" without looking at the contents of "foo.java" I actually originally had a Makefile with predeps/build/install targets where the "build" step just called tup. People complained that "if tup is supposed to replace make, why are you using make?" I switched it to predeps.sh/build.sh/install.sh and everybody shut up. I personally think it's less ergonomic but don't care enough to argue with a different person every week.

maccard 4y ago
> I personally think it's less ergonomic but don't care enough to argue with a different person every week. I'm with you here!