Re: WIP: About CMake v2

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, YUriy 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: 2015-09-01 14:05:44
Message-ID: 7931.1441116344@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> I guess I'm a bit skeptical about the idea of porting to a new build
> system. There's a good chance of replacing the problems we know about
> with new problems that are no less serious, but merely unknown to us.
> But I'm not going to stand here and hold my breath if everyone else
> thinks it's a good idea.

FWIW, I'm also skeptical that this experiment will succeed. I think it
is worth trying ... but I'm by no means promising to buy into the result.

There is precedent for this sort of thing: mysql converted from
autoconf+gmake to cmake a few years back, and AFAIK they've not
regretted it. So that's a data point that a project of complexity
more or less similar to ours can make the change.

Where I do *not* want to end up is maintaining *three* build systems.
So I'll definitely resist any proposals to commit a partly-done cmake
conversion (which I fear might seem attractive at some point).

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andres Freund 2015-09-01 14:07:43 Re: WIP: About CMake v2
Previous Message Andrew Dunstan 2015-09-01 13:58:17 Re: perlcritic