Re: About CMake

Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> writes:

> Jonah H. Harris wrote:
>> On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 11:47 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> > But of course those are just as straightforward in autoconf.  It's
>> > the not-straightforward stuff that's going to be a PITA to translate.
>> 
>> As much as I dislike autotools, I really despise CMake; it's a nasty
>> piece of work and I hope we don't switch to it.  Though, as I must've
>> missed it, what's the main complaint with the current build system?
>
> Impossible to use autoconf on Win32.

I don't think that's actually it. We used to use autoconf when we used cygwin
to build, didn't we? And there are other tools that use autoconf on windows.

We could use autoconf on win32 using cygwin utilities for things like sh and
awk. Just because we use those tools doesn't mean we have to use a cygwin
compiler or linker to actually do the build.

And we could always ship the preconfigured pg_config.h from a normal Windows
machine with cygwin installed since they're all the same (in theory).

I think it has more to do with the build-time tools. We have Makefile rules
that use awk or sed in them and those wouldn't work unless you have cygwin
installed when building. And in any case we want to use MSVC project files and
MSVC's make-equivalent to actually drive the build which kind of rules out
using the Makefile rules as-is.

--  Gregory Stark EnterpriseDB          http://www.enterprisedb.com Ask me about EnterpriseDB's RemoteDBA services!