From: Gianni <nasus.maximos@gmail.com>
To: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: WIP: About CMake v2
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2015 22:46:14 -0300
Message-ID: <1621694.E14Jq3Kp6T@tux>
User-Agent: KMail/4.14.8 (Linux/4.1.6-gentoo; KDE/4.14.8; x86_64; ; )
In-Reply-To: <20150828162849.GE2912@alvherre.pgsql>
References: <4184974.kkvGJ5GoEX@dinodell>
 <20150828153926.GG4857@alap3.anarazel.de>
 <20150828162849.GE2912@alvherre.pgsql>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Precedence: bulk
Sender: pgsql-hackers-owner@postgresql.org

On Friday 28 August 2015 13:28:49 Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Andres Freund wrote:
> > On 2015-08-28 12:32:45 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> > > YUriy Zhuravlev wrote:
> > > > Hello Hackers
> > > > 
> > > > How would you react if I provided a patch which introduces a CMake
> > > > build
> > > > system?
> > > 
> > > What's your motivation for doing so?
> > 
> > I definitely can see some advantages. Non-broken dependencies around
> > recursive make being a major one. But I'm also afraid it's a rather
> > large undertaking. There's a fair number of special kind of rules, and
> > we're probably not going to want to break pgxs for extensions.
> > 
> > I also have some doubts around the portability of cmake and it's
> > generated makefiles. We do support some odd platforms.
> 
> If it allows us to get rid of our custom MSVC scripts, it's a huge
> benefit, for sure -- that has been a huge pain in the neck since day
> one.

As a user, I suffer a bit with the current build system when I try to build 
libpq in MinGW.  So, if moving to CMake means the build is more 'decoupled', 
i.e. less inter-dependent modules, it would be great.


-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers