From: | Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi> |
Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Craig Ringer <craig(dot)ringer(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Yuriy Zhuravlev <stalkerg(at)gmail(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: WIP: About CMake v2 |
Date: | 2017-02-10 18:33:18 |
Message-ID: | CABUevExORis_YOYW_XgksGPoQoUUbJso=GNVAJn20ZxwztoC7Q@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Feb 10, 2017 at 7:31 PM, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi> wrote:
> On 02/10/2017 08:27 PM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
>
>> For me a killer feature would be if/when we can get to a point where we
>> can
>> have something pgxs-style on cmake that also works on windows.
>>
>> Our homemade Windows build system works OK for postgres, and while ugly it
>> is as you say well tested by now. But it doesn't do *anything* to help
>> people build extensions on Windows.
>>
>
> Do we need to build PostgreSQL itself using cmake, to achieve that? Could
> we write something like pgxs for cmake, only for extensions?
>
>
I guess we wouldn't, but we'd still need the "replacement for autoconf"
part. So then we're back to maintaining multiple buildsystems.
--
Magnus Hagander
Me: http://www.hagander.net/
Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andres Freund | 2017-02-10 18:39:04 | Re: WIP: About CMake v2 |
Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2017-02-10 18:32:45 | Re: WIP: About CMake v2 |