On Wed, Feb 8, 2017 at 04:52:19PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> > On 2/8/17 6:21 AM, Yuriy Zhuravlev wrote:
> >> Support two build systems it's not big deal really. I have been working
> >> on this past year without any big troubles.
> >> Also we have second perl build system...
>
> > The perl/msvc build system pulls in information from the makefiles. So
> > when you add a file or something basic like that, you don't have to
> > update it. So it's really more like 1.5 build systems.
>
> Really it's more like 1.1 build systems, in that the MSVC scripts do that
> just well enough that you *usually* don't have to think about them. But
> then when they fail, and you have to figure out why, it can be a pain.
If cmake isn't going to be able to query the Makefiles and adjust to
changes we make there, changing our Windows build system from MSVC to
cmake takes us from maintaining 1.1 build systems to two build systems,
and I don't think anyone wants that.
If we go to cmake, I think we need to agree we will eventually _only_
use cmake. I don't think having two build systems we have to maintain
is better than 1.1 build systems where we can mostly ignore 0.1 of that.
-- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB
http://enterprisedb.com
+ As you are, so once was I. As I am, so you will be. +
+ Ancient Roman grave inscription +