Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com> writes: > I wonder about two other things: one is speed of the build (not that > currently it's all that great, given all the mess with recursive make > invocations, but perhaps it can be even worse); the other is how ugly > the generated files are going to be, and are we going to carry them in > our repo -- right now we only have configure, but are we going to keep > extra files to cope with builds in systems that don't have cmake > installed (as we cope with missing bison and flex)?
As near as I can tell, the generated files are platform-specific. (They're certainly different for Unix and Windows; the overview I'm looking at doesn't say in so many words whether they can vary at a finer grain, but I bet they do.) So I'm afraid cmake would likely become a build requirement, even for tarball users. That is probably not a show-stopper, but it's a point against the idea. I have no idea whether switching to cmake would be a good thing or not. It's possible that it'd end up being even uglier than our current autoconf+gmake+msvc-scripts mess ... although when phrased that way, that sounds like a pretty low bar to clear. Anyway, if YUriy is willing to do the preliminary investigation, let's see what he comes up with. 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