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

From Michael Paquier
Subject Re: WIP: About CMake v2
Date
Msg-id CAB7nPqQTdKO6Qk2-gzTX43jG=RsFg2Z6cQ_bat-nEHEjE9yzpQ@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: WIP: About CMake v2  (Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>)
Responses Re: WIP: About CMake v2  (Yury Zhuravlev <u.zhuravlev@postgrespro.ru>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 5:10 AM, Alvaro Herrera
<alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> Yury Zhuravlev wrote:
>> Hello Hackers.
>>
>> I decided to talk about the current state of the project:
>> 1. Merge with 9.6 master. 2. plpython2, plpython3, plperl, pltcl, plsql all
>> work correctly (all tests pass).
>> 3. Works done for all contrib modules. 4. You can use gettext, .po->.mo will
>> have converted by CMake.  5. All test pass under some Linux, FreeBSD,
>> Solaris10 (on Sparc), Windows MSVC 2015. MacOSX I think not big trouble too.
>> 6. Prototype for PGXS (with MSVC support) done.

Yeah! 6 would be really cool to have. Now that's doable with the perl
classes at disposition, but that's not really user-friendly.

> I just tried a standard build in Debian Jessie and it works nicely.
> Well done!  I think we should seriously consider this once 10 opens for
> development.

Yes! Heartfully agreed.

You have not tested with macOS, and so did I. With 10.11 with cmake
from brew I am getting this error at the first step:
-- Check flexible array support - yes with
CMake Error at cmake/RegressCheck.cmake:12 (elif): Unknown CMake command "elif".
Call Stack (most recent call first): CMakeLists.txt:782 (include)
$ cmake --version
cmake version 3.5.2
CMake suite maintained and supported by Kitware (kitware.com/cmake)

It would be nice to come as well with simpler steps than all this
mkdir build, etc stanza. Perhaps with a wrapper of some kind, in perl
that may be a good idea, though perl is not a hard requirement in
source tarballs, and on Windows/MSVC it is.
Regards,
-- 
Michael



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Andres Freund
Date:
Subject: Re: Reviewing freeze map code
Next
From: Gavin Flower
Date:
Subject: Re: 10.0