On Fri, Oct 31, 2014 at 12:04 PM, David Roundy < [email protected]> wrote:
> I am aware of that argument against copies, but think the simplicity and > portability would benefit from copies (or maybe symlinks). It is > relatively rare that output is much smaller than input, so in the case of > 10GB of input files with many variants, you're already looking at a huge > amount of disk space and very slow build. > Some details of this proposal are necessary. Are the copies supposed to be made prior to determining what has to be built, or are the copies supposed to be made only of inputs files that have changed? There are lots of different ways to implement this suggestion, most of them badly. To be useful it requires a very careful design. In principle in favor of the temporary visibility if input file is that they are only needed during the build, so they should only exist during the build. I favor something like the overlay file system, which is both effective and efficient. But its requirements may be too high. 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.
