Ok, Sorry for such late answer, Yeah that basically helped. I rewrited rules but still managing bigger project is somewhat painfull without synchronizations decriptors. However without dubt, in comparision to other buildsystems, tup covering the most of what I need. Thanks guys for help, and keep up the good work :)
W dniu piątek, 15 kwietnia 2016 10:36:37 UTC+2 użytkownik Freddie Chopin napisał: > > On czw, 2016-04-14 at 16:19 -0700, Mateusz Matejuk wrote: > > but this is preatty weak solution since for more such targets i will > > need to copy-paste them with exact names, > > But you will have to list the names somewhere anyway... What difference > does it make if you say "do.o" instead of "$(ROOT)/<do.o>"? The group > can have just one file, and you can expand it in the rule like this: > > : $(ROOT)/<do.o> |> cp %<do.o> do.d |> $(ROOT)/B/do.d > > > Is there any viable method to describe dependency on another rule, > > target or goal? > > If you would "invert" your setup it would work without groups. You just > need to generate the file do.o in the same directory as the tupfile, > and then you can have it as input in another tupfile with full path. > Sth like: > > : $(ROOT)/A/do.o |> ar -rcs %o %f |> libdo.a > > Another method - if you really want the file do.o to be in B folder - > is to generate it with the tupfile in B, not the one in A. > > Regards, > FCh > -- -- 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.
