From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
Cc: Noah Misch <noah@leadboat.com>
Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>
Cc: YUriy Zhuravlev <u.zhuravlev@postgrespro.ru>
Cc: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: WIP: About CMake v2
Date: Tue, 01 Sep 2015 11:46:05 -0400
Message-ID: <10683.1441122365@sss.pgh.pa.us> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20150901143754.GI31526@awork2.anarazel.de>
References: <4184974.kkvGJ5GoEX@dinodell>
<20150828153245.GD2912@alvherre.pgsql>
<20150828153926.GG4857@alap3.anarazel.de>
<20150828162849.GE2912@alvherre.pgsql>
<20150901043331.GA2904638@tornado.leadboat.com>
<24796.1441082995@sss.pgh.pa.us>
<20150901143239.GC2904258@tornado.leadboat.com>
<20150901143754.GI31526@awork2.anarazel.de>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:majordomo@postgresql.org?body=unsub%20pgsql-hackers>
Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> writes:
> On 2015-09-01 10:32:39 -0400, Noah Misch wrote:
>> A monolithic patch replacing the GNU make build system with a CMake build
>> system sounds far too hard to write and review; we should expect to maintain
>> those two build systems in parallel for awhile.
> I don't buy this.
Me either. I think the odds would be better than 50-50 that we'd never
get past that stage, and we'd be left with a situation where we've still
got two build systems, only one of them is cmake not hand-rolled perl.
Now, maybe that's still an improvement over what we've got, but the
argument is significantly harder to make. We'd have bought into all of
cmake's disadvantages (whatever they prove to be) but we'd be missing
the main claimed advantage. Also, while src/tools/msvc certainly has
got limitations, it does get a fair amount of its info out of the
Makefiles; having to change it when you add a file or whatever is the
exception not the rule. A separate cmake build system would certainly
require maintenance *every* time we touch the Makefiles.
I would actually suggest that the cmake conversion would be better off
to ignore src/tools/msvc altogether to begin with. Build something that
can handle, say, the Linux build, and then stop and evaluate. If that
looks good then start extending to other platforms. If cmake is as nifty
as some folks claim, you might already have an 80%-working Windows build
at that point.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Cc: tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, andres@anarazel.de, noah@leadboat.com, alvherre@2ndquadrant.com, u.zhuravlev@postgrespro.ru
Subject: Re: WIP: About CMake v2
In-Reply-To: <10683.1441122365@sss.pgh.pa.us>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox