Re: WIP: About CMake v2

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

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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