2018-04-15 6:13 GMT+09:00 Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de>:

> On 2018-04-14 17:10:21 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> writes:
> > > On April 14, 2018 1:56:08 PM PDT, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> > >> The project policy is to use exactly the GNU distribution of autoconf.
> >
> > > Fwiw, I see one copyright year related diff with unmodified upstream
> autoconf.
> >
> > Really?  Where did you get autoconf from?  My archived copy of
> > autoconf-2.69.tar.gz, fetched 2013-11-15, has internal file
> > dates of (mostly) 2012-04-24.  That matches the file dates at
> > https://ftp.gnu.org/gnu/autoconf/
> > so I've not actually pulled down fresh bits to compare, but ...
> The v2.69 git tag.  So I guess that's set somewhere in the tarball
> building. Hrmpf.
> The half unmaintainedness of autoconf (no release in five years counts
> as that imo), sure makes it look like a good idea to move on to cmake or
> such at some point...
My cmake branch still working and I supporting stable postgres releases:

Also, I looked into Meson but unfortunately some features still not exist
for building postgres.
Anyway, my branch exist, cmake working fine maybe without minor features
like generating documentation.
My cmake version also have minor different behaviour but it because cmake
not build your project directly, it more like project generator (same as
automake and meson).

We can start conversation about it again, I am open for this.


Reply via email to