Hi, everyone. I love love love Tup. Love it. I feel like I can say that here.
Consider this Tupfile: : |> echo a > %o |> a.in : |> echo 1 > %o |> a--1 #: |> echo 2 > %o |> a--2 : a.in | * |> cat %f %B--* > %o |> %B.out If you run this, you'll get a.out containing the lines a 1 Now, if you uncomment the third line, what should happen? Two things, right? The line "2" should be written to "b--2", clearly. But shouldn't "b.out" also be updated to include that line? For me, it doesn't. I've tried all sorts of variations, including groups. This seems like a bug, especially since if I remove "b.out", then it will be regenerated with all three lines. Of course it will---but we expect the incremental build to match the new build, right? Also, if I re-comment the third rule at that point, both rules are fired (as expected). At that point, Tup knows that b--2 was used as an input to b.out. But I would expect it to to consider b.out "dirty" upon the introduction of the third rule, due to the "*" used as an extra input. (Again, I've tried it with various globs.) Long live Tup! Thanks, Gavin -- -- 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.
