Re: Migrate to autoconf 2.72?

po 1. 12. 2025 v 12:48 odesílatel Aleksander Alekseev <
aleksander(at)tigerdata(dot)com> napsal:

> Hi Pavel,
>
> > But when you use autotools for extensions, then you still should to
> maintain it.
>
> True, but the problem can be decomposed into two parts - maintaining
> for the core and maintaining for the extensions. At least core
> developers won't have to check if another patch compiles with
> Autotools.
>

Almost all server headers can be used in any extension. So I don't think
maintaining autotools for extensions can be easier than maintaining
autotools for the server.

> I'm not certain what to do with the extensions. It seems that as long
> as we maintain Autotools the authors will have little interest in
> switching to Meson (or other build system - TimescaleDB for instance
> uses CMake; many modern extensions seem to be written in Rust with its
> own build system). Apparently we will have to start showing warnings
> at some point, and then finally drop Autotools. Unless we want to
> maintain it forever.
>
> This being said, I didn't investigate how much effsqlort it will take to
> keep maintaining Autotools for extensions.
>

I support Meson in my extensions - Orafce and plpgsql_check, but
unfortunately it is harder to write and harder to maintain meson.build than
Makefile for pgxs

I am not sure if there are some authorities who specified some generic
template of meson.build for extensions.

Maybe with some Postgres Meson's extension for building
postgres's extension then writing meson.build can be more easy than it is
now - but now, there is zero support for meson for extension from Postgres
side.

Regards

Pavel

>
> --
> Best regards,
> Aleksander Alekseev
>