Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> I wonder about two other things: one is speed of the build (not that
> currently it's all that great, given all the mess with recursive make
> invocations, but perhaps it can be even worse); the other is how ugly
> the generated files are going to be, and are we going to carry them in
> our repo -- right now we only have configure, but are we going to keep
> extra files to cope with builds in systems that don't have cmake
> installed (as we cope with missing bison and flex)?
As near as I can tell, the generated files are platform-specific.
(They're certainly different for Unix and Windows; the overview
I'm looking at doesn't say in so many words whether they can vary
at a finer grain, but I bet they do.) So I'm afraid cmake would
likely become a build requirement, even for tarball users. That
is probably not a show-stopper, but it's a point against the idea.
I have no idea whether switching to cmake would be a good thing or not.
It's possible that it'd end up being even uglier than our current
autoconf+gmake+msvc-scripts mess ... although when phrased that way,
that sounds like a pretty low bar to clear. Anyway, if YUriy is willing
to do the preliminary investigation, let's see what he comes up with.
regards, tom lane