On Feb 10, 2017 19:41, "Andres Freund" <and...@anarazel.de> wrote:
On 2017-02-10 19:33:18 +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote: > I guess we wouldn't, but we'd still need the "replacement for autoconf" > part. So then we're back to maintaining multiple buildsystems. Hm? Do we really need that? Most of the things in an extension you do *not* want to determine separately from the backend. It's not like pgxs atm really allows to differ wildly from autoconf's results. And most of the relevant determinations made by autoconf are available in headers and/or we can generate a cmake include file with the results of autoconf. Yeah, you're right. You need the output from the process, it mot the process itself. /Magnus
