On Sunday 21 December 2008 00:59:27 Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Andrew Dunstan wrote: > > We (i.e. probably Magnus and I in the first instance) should think about > > creating a bit of a cookbook if we're going to persist with this build > > system. > > Well, we were going to try CMake, but we need somebody to do the work.
It did play around with CMake a while back. It works OK. I had libpq and psql building, for example. The problem I see is that converting the build system will probably take many man-hours, and in the meantime, it would essentially create yet another build system to maintain. Plus, we are not sure, of course, whether we will end up adopting CMake. My preferred approach now is that the existing makefiles need to be refactored more aggressively first, using make functions. We could incidentally design those functions similar to the CMake declarations, so a conversion, if we decided to do one, would be simple. But doing that properly would require a newer GNU make version, so it needs some consideration first. (I'm not talking about last week's release, but more like 4 years old versus the 10 years old that we currently require.) We can revisit this for the next release cycle. -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
