From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
cc: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>,
        Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@enterprisedb.com>,
        Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>,
        PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: meson oddities
In-reply-to: <CA+TgmoaO8Jxgn+gCTZf43jbnmpDRyGARd8LJnEC20n1SPNNgnQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <cecbf387-6008-8596-1d9a-c1f96afc9416@dunslane.net> <20221115190425.uapepwpzmemyokqi@awork3.anarazel.de> <91b563cc-fa78-0011-5efc-ce61d277d64f@dunslane.net> <1197537.1668546515@sss.pgh.pa.us> <20221115234042.zkxyxzv5wgewit33@awork3.anarazel.de> <030d04cc-d4f3-cd28-5bcb-b2b5d00f0015@enterprisedb.com> <20221116164010.uxsrhsqiqhftvkfp@awork3.anarazel.de> <1360237.1668617650@sss.pgh.pa.us> <20221116170747.zpaijt6zz7lgkffd@awork3.anarazel.de> <8efbb197-c55a-0947-35ba-6b8403d9baff@enterprisedb.com> <20230104193502.ax5gmgt6yqznolvm@awork3.anarazel.de> <CA+TgmoaO8Jxgn+gCTZf43jbnmpDRyGARd8LJnEC20n1SPNNgnQ@mail.gmail.com>
Comments: In-reply-to Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
	message dated "Wed, 04 Jan 2023 16:06:15 -0500"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <2339906.1672867118.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Date: Wed, 04 Jan 2023 16:18:38 -0500
Message-ID: <2339907.1672867118@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Archived-At: <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/2339907.1672867118%40sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk

Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> If we don't do as Peter suggests, then any difference between the
> results of one build system and the other could either be a bug or an
> intentional deviation. There will be no easy way to know which it is.
> And if or when people switch build systems, stuff will be randomly
> different, and they won't understand why.

> I hear your point too. It's unpleasant for you to spend a lot of
> effort overriding meson's behavior if the result is arguably worse
> than the default, and it has the effect of carrying forward in
> perpetuity hacks that may not have been a good idea in the first
> place, or may not be a good idea any more. Those seem like valid
> concerns, too.

Yeah.  I think the way forward probably needs to be to decide that
we are (or are not) going to make changes to the installation tree
layout, and then make both build systems conform to that.  I don't
really buy the argument that it's okay to let them install different
layouts.  I *am* prepared to listen to arguments that "this is dumb
and we shouldn't do it anymore".

			regards, tom lane