From: | Christian Convey <christian(dot)convey(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Stefan Kaltenbrunner <stefan(at)kaltenbrunner(dot)cc> |
Cc: | Yury 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: | 2016-08-18 19:55:20 |
Message-ID: | CAPfS4Zwqfgo2YC7RyyWA6BmMNtpZ1SkJ=7TYRqthJaxW5C6=hg@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi Stefan,
>> Yury: Would it make sense to add a call to "cmake_minimum_required" in
>> one or more of your CMakeLists.txt files?
>
> it would make sense nevertheless but I dont think that 2.8.11 is old
> enough - looking at the release information and the feature compatibily
> matrix it would seems we should more aim at something like 2.8.0 or 2.8.3...
I'm new to PG development, so I don't know what ideas the community is
open to. But I wonder if there's any merit to the following
approach...
* Allow the CMake-based build system to assume a fairly modern version
of CMake. (Maybe 2.8.12, or 3.0.)
* For systems where the minimum CMake version isn't readily available,
have an alternative build system which is just a simplistic Bash
script that naively performs a full build every time it's invoked.
The idea being that PG contributors are mostly the people who want
efficient rebuilds, and most/all of them could easily install that
minimal CMake version.
*IF* it proved possible to write a clear, maintainable Bash script for
that, perhaps that would eliminate most concerns about CMake not being
well-supported on uncommon platforms / platform versions.
- Christian
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Stefan Kaltenbrunner | 2016-08-18 19:57:50 | Re: WIP: About CMake v2 |
Previous Message | Stefan Kaltenbrunner | 2016-08-18 19:53:13 | Re: WIP: About CMake v2 |