Added to TODO for Win32:
o Convert MSVC build system to remove most batch files
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2007-08/msg00961.php
---
Andrew Dunstan wrote:
I want to overhaul
Andrew Dunstan wrote:
I want to overhaul the MSVC build system somewhat and want to discuss
my plans.
[snip]. Apart from fixing the issue with using the systems dir
command rather than using File::Find, which I will revisit, I think
that's all I would do now, given how close we are to
Magnus Hagander wrote:
David Boreham wrote:
To add my 2d worth to this: after working on a few very large
projects that built on both Unix and Windows my preference is
to use a single autotools-based build for both, with a script called cccl
that translates cc-style arguments for Microsoft's
Tom Lane wrote:
Magnus Hagander [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
That, or we create the makefiles in a fixed system and keep the
Makefiles in CVS (though would be derived files).
IIRC, we previously looked into cmake and concluded it supported a lot
fewer platforms than
I want to overhaul the MSVC build system somewhat and want to discuss my
plans.
The first thing I want to do is get rid of at least most of the .bat
files in it altogether and make a single coherent perl-based system. The
reasons are:
. the XP_EXIT_FIX hack we built in to cater for the XP
On Mon, 2007-08-27 at 11:00 -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
In the longer run I want to make the whole system more data driven, so
that it's comparatively easy for someone to add stuff.
I don't mean to hijack your thread, but I wonder if maintaining two
separate build systems is the best approach
Neil Conway wrote:
On Mon, 2007-08-27 at 11:00 -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
In the longer run I want to make the whole system more data driven, so
that it's comparatively easy for someone to add stuff.
I don't mean to hijack your thread, but I wonder if maintaining two
separate
Andrew Dunstan wrote:
Neil Conway wrote:
I don't mean to hijack your thread, but I wonder if maintaining two
separate build systems is the best approach in the long term. I think
CMake[1] is an interesting alternative: it would allow us to generate
both makefiles and MSVC .proj's from a
Neil Conway wrote:
On Mon, 2007-08-27 at 11:00 -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
In the longer run I want to make the whole system more data driven, so
that it's comparatively easy for someone to add stuff.
I don't mean to hijack your thread, but I wonder if maintaining two
separate build
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Andrew Dunstan wrote:
Neil Conway wrote:
I don't mean to hijack your thread, but I wonder if maintaining two
separate build systems is the best approach in the long term. I think
CMake[1] is an interesting alternative: it would allow us to generate
both makefiles
David Boreham wrote:
Neil Conway wrote:
On Mon, 2007-08-27 at 11:00 -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
In the longer run I want to make the whole system more data driven,
so that it's comparatively easy for someone to add stuff.
I don't mean to hijack your thread, but I wonder if
Magnus Hagander wrote:
IIRC, we previously looked into cmake and concluded it supported a lot
fewer platforms than pgsql.
However, if we can go by Alvaros suggestion and keep the makefiles as
derived files, that could certainly work...
But everyone would still need to learn it.
Maybe
Andrew Dunstan wrote:
Magnus Hagander wrote:
IIRC, we previously looked into cmake and concluded it supported a lot
fewer platforms than pgsql.
However, if we can go by Alvaros suggestion and keep the makefiles as
derived files, that could certainly work...
But everyone would
Magnus Hagander [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
That, or we create the makefiles in a fixed system and keep the
Makefiles in CVS (though would be derived files).
IIRC, we previously looked into cmake and concluded it supported a lot
fewer platforms than pgsql.
However, if
14 matches
Mail list logo
