| From: | Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | Craig Ringer <craig(dot)ringer(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, Yuriy Zhuravlev <stalkerg(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: WIP: About CMake v2 |
| Date: | 2017-02-10 18:55:30 |
| Message-ID: | CABUevEw+MDkKij=mBfmreLGAhvHEmVn7+VhRtnGzx3vdtH25+g@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Feb 10, 2017 19:41, "Andres Freund" <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
On 2017-02-10 19:33:18 +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> I guess we wouldn't, but we'd still need the "replacement for autoconf"
> part. So then we're back to maintaining multiple buildsystems.
Hm? Do we really need that? Most of the things in an extension you do
*not* want to determine separately from the backend. It's not like pgxs
atm really allows to differ wildly from autoconf's results. And most of
the relevant determinations made by autoconf are available in headers
and/or we can generate a cmake include file with the results of
autoconf.
Yeah, you're right. You need the output from the process, it mot the
process itself.
/Magnus
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2017-02-10 19:42:16 | Re: WIP: About CMake v2 |
| Previous Message | Masahiko Sawada | 2017-02-10 18:55:25 | Re: DROP SUBSCRIPTION and ROLLBACK |