Re: WIP: About CMake v2

From: Christian Convey <christian(dot)convey(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Stefan Kaltenbrunner <stefan(at)kaltenbrunner(dot)cc>, Yury Zhuravlev <u(dot)zhuravlev(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: WIP: About CMake v2
Date: 2016-08-18 19:42:18
Message-ID: CAPfS4ZzhP1vdU2C4RCKvE=ks0JsZMsW41bT_ivQNqmqCqPanSA@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Hi Tom,

Thanks for that information.

Is there some document I can read that explains which platform
versions (e.g., OpenBSD 5.3) are considered strongly supported?

I ask because I'm curious if/how someone in Yury's situation could
predict which minimum version of CMake must be supported in order for
his patch to be accepted. (And if he accepts my offer to pitch in,
I'll actually need that particular detail.)

Kind regards,
Christian

> As an additional comment, I don't see us accepting a build system
> that doesn't run on pretty old cmakes. We have never had a policy
> of "latest and greatest is required" for *any* build support tool,
> and cmake isn't likely to be given an exception.
>
> BTW, I just noticed that cmake doesn't seem to be supplied as part of
> Apple's dev tools, at least not up to current (El Capitan) releases.
> That's going to be a rather large minus to be taken into account
> whenever we make the go/no-go decision on this.
>
> regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message David E. Wheeler 2016-08-18 19:51:09 Re: anyelement -> anyrange
Previous Message Stefan Kaltenbrunner 2016-08-18 19:41:57 Re: WIP: About CMake v2