Re: WIP: About CMake v2 - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: WIP: About CMake v2
Date
Msg-id 29413.1448604858@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: WIP: About CMake v2  (Craig Ringer <craig@2ndquadrant.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
Craig Ringer <craig@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> One thing to consider: I can't imagine backporting this to all supported
> back branches, it'd be a switch for the next release. Right?

Agreed.

> That means he doesn't have to worry about what RH / Debian policy for their
> old versions is. RH isn't going to release PostgreSQL 9.7 or whatever for
> RHEL6, Debian isn't going to release it for Wheezy, etc.

Well, they won't if we make it impossible for them to do so.

More generally, I do not buy this argument for one second as a reason why
we can demand latest-and-greatest cmake, rather than something that's
likely to be readily available on a wide variety of platforms.  Devrim is
not the only person in the world who will be needing to build PG on RHEL6,
or even older platforms.

If you take a close look at our build requirements, you will notice a
general distaste for insisting on latest anything.  cmake is not going
to escape that project bias.  Do you really think a project that still
works with C89, Perl 5.8.something, Python 2.3, bison 1.875, yadda yadda
is readily going to accept a patch that requires this year's cmake?
It would take a fairly impressive technical argument why working with
older cmakes is impossible/impractical before that will happen.
        regards, tom lane



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Craig Ringer
Date:
Subject: Re: WIP: About CMake v2
Next
From: Michael Paquier
Date:
Subject: Re: WIP: About CMake v2