On Fri, Oct 31, 2014 at 9:28 AM, Freddie Chopin <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 10/31/2014 02:12 PM, David Roundy wrote: > >> What about explicitly copying the input files to the variant output >> directory? There are programs (that annoy build authors) such as latex that >> explicitly require that the input and output be in the same directory. The >> current approach of pretending that the input files are in the output >> directory works, but it seems simpler to actually copy them there. Then >> when you modify the "real" input files, there would be a rule to update the >> ones in the variant build, and that would trigger a rebuild in the >> variant. It seems (to my naive self) like this implicit set of copy rules >> (combined with the configuration handling in the variant) would be all that >> is needed for variants to work. >> >> David >> > > As simple as it sounds I don't think it's a good solution. Imagine that > there are 10GB of "input" files and you have 15 variants - you'd end up > with 150GB of copies... I know this example is exaggerated, but someday > someone will come with such problem anyway... > That problem exists with copies, but not with links. After all, file sharing is the very purpose of links. I would prefer symbolic links so that defective tools cannot trash the original input files, but a read-only hard link would probably suffice. The build system could even remove all of the links at the completion of the build. Such links even work on Micros~1 Window~1. Lee Winter Nashua, New Hampshire United States of America -- -- tup-users mailing list email: [email protected] unsubscribe: [email protected] options: http://groups.google.com/group/tup-users?hl=en --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "tup-users" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
