| From: | Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: MSVC build system |
| Date: | 2007-08-27 20:35:38 |
| Message-ID: | 46D3359A.9000207@hagander.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
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 and MSVC .proj's from a single set of master build files.
>> I would be more than happy if we had a single build system. Maybe some
>> enterprising person would like to try to create such a system as a proof of
>> concept. I count around 200 makefiles in our sources ;-)
>>
>> Of course, we'd need to know that cmake was pretty universally available
>> too.
>
> 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 we can go by Alvaros suggestion and keep the makefiles as
derived files, that could certainly work...
//Magnus
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Magnus Hagander | 2007-08-27 20:36:34 | Re: MSVC build system |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2007-08-27 19:45:02 | Re: Insufficient attention to security in contrib (mostly) |