Re: Is a modern build system acceptable for older platforms

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Geoff Winkless <pgsqladmin(at)geoff(dot)dj>
Cc: stalkerg(at)gmail(dot)com, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Is a modern build system acceptable for older platforms
Date: 2018-05-02 14:22:55
Message-ID: 16797.1525270975@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Geoff Winkless <pgsqladmin(at)geoff(dot)dj> writes:
> Being blunt, unless I've missed the point all the arguments I've read so
> far for cmake seem to be advantages for the developers, not the users. As
> developers who put in your time you are of course entitled to make your
> lives easier but I'm just making the counterpoint that if you do so at the
> expense of your users you lose a certain amount of goodwill. It's up to you
> all how much that matters.

Yeah, one of the things that I find to be a very significant turn-off in
these proposals is that they'd break the "configure; make; make install"
ritual that so many people are accustomed to. User-unfriendly decisions
like cmake's approach to configuration switches (-D? really?) are icing
on top of what's already an un-tasty cake.

What we do internally is our business, but these things are part of the
package's API in a real sense. Changing them has a cost, one that's not
all borne by us.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Heikki Linnakangas 2018-05-02 14:24:45 Re: BufFileSize() doesn't work on a "shared" BufFiles
Previous Message David G. Johnston 2018-05-02 13:29:24 Re: Should we add GUCs to allow partition pruning to be disabled?